Template talk:Technical

This template was considered for merging with Template:Overly detailed on 29 April 2012. The result of the discussion was "do not merge".

Emphasizing the "don't dumb down" clause

I recently added emphasis to the phrase without removing the technical details. My thinking was "it's far too easy for people to miss this important qualifier".

Unfortunately, my change was reverted by Debresser (saying that wasn't the main point of the template -- which is obvious, but what does that have to do with anything anyway?), but after asking on IRC, I decided to let it lie. However, Trovatore thought this was actually important, so reverted the revert. So Debresser reverted again, claiming that this had something to do with WP:BRD, despite the fact that that page very clearly says that If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle. So, um, I'm a bit confused, both about Debresser's reasoning for thinking the change is detrimental, and why he's trying to invoke WP:BRD as he violates it. —SamB (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, another approach would be to make the template explicitly say that the way to fix this is by explaining (possibly by link) any necessary terminology/notation. —SamB (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural points aside, templates have specific purposes, and should focus on those. The text in maintenance templates is usually already packed with information, links and bolds, and stressing secondary points is the last thing that should be done. I say this based on years of work in the area of maintenance templates. Debresser (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template has issues not shared by the general run of maintenance templates. The problem, as always with this template, is its misuse by editors who think that anything they personally don't have the background to follow is "too technical".

That said, I'm not interested in fighting over the italics. When I think the tag has been misapplied I simply remove it, or sometimes move it to the talk page. The important issue is really whether the tag is correctly applied. But on balance, I would prefer the italics, because they could be a harm-reduction strategy in certain cases. --Trovatore (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italics or bolds? I don't think we usually use italics in template text. But better italics than bolds. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk parameter

There is no Talk parameter (or I can't find one that words). Is there a reason for this and can it be changed? Leaving out the reason for the flag or making the reader trawl through the Talk page for that reason seems a loss to the template. LookingGlass (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LookingGlass: Using the talk parameter works. It's possible you tried "Talk" with an upper case "T" rather than "talk". For example, this will link to the "Certain subjects are technical" section that's above if it were used on this article.

{{technical|date=October 2017|talk=Certain subjects are technical}}

However, there is an issue in that the result of using talk= creates a slightly confusing result as it inserts a sentence into the hat notice that about "Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page" that links to the talk page section but leaves the "The talk page may contain suggestions" in place that links to the talk page in general. Here's the wording without and then with the talk parameter.

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. The talk page may contain suggestions.
This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. The talk page may contain suggestions.

I believe it would be better that using the talk= parameter does not change the wording but would change the link for "The talk page may contain suggestions" to refer to the indicated section. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the parameter works then it should be documented. Right now the template is too vague by itself, and it needs supplemental information on the talk page. Otherwise editors might not relate to your concern. Praemonitus (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add an option for marking the introduction as being too technical

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'd like to add the option of marking the introduction specifically as being too technical:

Diff from sandbox.

Above it was suggested that {{context}} could be used instead, but I believe {{technical}} 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)[reply]

Not done for now: The main template already uses {{{1|}}} for the |sect= 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)[reply]

@Izno: 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)[reply]

Done With some adjustment from the sandbox. Please feel free to sync the sandbox. Izno (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adjust text for overly technical lead

We often omit technical details from the lead when they're not of interest to most readers. The current template now says that these details should stay, which contradicts the WP:EXPLAINLEAD guideline, which says While the lead is intended to mention all key aspects of the topic in some way, accessibility can be improved by only summarizing the topic in the lead and placing the technical details in the body of the article. Could this wording be adjusted, so that the template either stops after non-experts, or that it says: "by placing technical details in the body". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also MOS:INTRO, which says, "Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where possible, avoid difficult-to-understand terminology, symbols, mathematical equations and formulas." Praemonitus (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I've implemented it in the sandbox. I went for the more concise version as 'body' is Wikipedia jargon, which would be a bit ironic for this template. It seems this was also the version initially implemented above, and the edit summary moving away from it [1] did not mention the change, so it may have been an error.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New icon proposal - File:Erlenmeyer_flask_Icon.svg

I think this currently-unused Tango icon would be a good replacement for the current generic broom for this template. There are other flask icons, but this one has the stirring rod and signals more of an active process needing care. You know, the "science" vibe as associated by this template, that there's too many cooks in the kitchen (lab) and distillation is required. Also it looks cool. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 01:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I think the broom is intended to indicate a cleanup is needed, so it's probably appropriate. Praemonitus (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I only wished to distinguish it since the broom is used on so many templates identically, that might be overlooked. In particular, the "overly technical" complaint seems like it warrants special attention, more than just "this is sloppy". ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 12:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I'm not sure a chemistry flask communicates it as clearly. But since nobody else seems to be watching, you could post an edit request and see what happens. I won't oppose. Praemonitus (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]