Advice (from NisePanda)

(Split from another discussion. Originally a reply to Thread:User talk:Kapra/Curious/reply (5))

You're overanalyzing again. Just think of the situation directly. Apples are red. Crime is bad. Sharks are sort of cool. You don't need t write 3-4 sentences about any of those things. Marcus built a bridge. We don't need 3-4 sentences explaining what Marcus did, we just need to know that Marcus built a bridge. Whole point of wiki is to be clear and precise, so be clear and precise, write discussions like you would write a page on the wiki. "I don't like X because of Y." "I think X is the best solution because Y." "X is Y." "You could do X with Y."

Most importantly sometimes when X says Y is bad. Then Y is bad. Murder will never be good(an exaggerated example, but you get the point.) You don't have to explain some things any further because, well, Y is bad.

Making scenarios isn't any better, they're really long and I feel that you're only trying to drag on the discussion when it can be ended easily. You only make people repeat themselves over and over again, make clear questions, not analogies or hypothetical situations on what it is exactly someone wants. Because in most likely cases someone doesn't like something in your analogy and/or what-if situation and they will disagree with something in it.

This made me laugh, but sort of contradictory wording which is not helpful here. Your post is about conciseness, rather than preciseness. Precision would just incite Kapra to post more in order to cover every detail of the situation.

However, it's fair to bring up that conciseness is important. The basic principles are correct, understandable, concise, and useful (as in wanted by the typical reader). CUCU (coo-coo~!), yes, it's totally a new thing. =w=)b

EDIT: Oh I should mention this is more in relation to how one presents information. It's not always what you'd use in a conversation.