Wikipedia talk:Wall of text

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Mid	This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

I like it

We needed a name for that phenomenon :) You should add as a particular distinguishing style a lack of diffs in the short novel - chunk defences seldom seem to contain diffs for some reason (like there's not actually anything substantial to them perhaps...)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once in a while a chunk contains totally irrelevant diffs. Or links to whole histories and talk pages with an invitation to glean nonexistent data from the contents. Durova³²⁰ 22:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have encountered that subset. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am Xavexgoem, and I approve of this essay. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COTD? Nice essay--and one of its virtues is that it's short, utterly unlike the phenomenon it documents. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) Durova³²⁰ 01:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great essay. Good work. --John (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re diffs; in my experience the chunk o' text defense is often larded with diffs and almost every phrase is linked, usually to diffs (and the best ones can be linked multiple times of course), or to pages like WP:NPOV which of course bear no obvious relation to the point the writer is trying to make. A veritable sea of blue. The hope is, of course that one's opponents will be intimidated by the sheer volume and number of links and think you must be right. --John (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactamente. Durova³²⁰ 22:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

move to Wall of Text

This is the much more common name.--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deletion

The essay has little to no community consensus.
The essay is contrary to encyclopedic values and civility and amounts to shouting "shut up" at someone when quoted.
The essay is poorly written and unnecessarily vague.
The essay is easily used as a bludgeon to WP:BITE new editors who make formatting mistakes.
Finally, WP:NOT 4chan. We are not the ADD generation, our reading skills should at least be enough to handle a paragraph or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.33.212.171 (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is virtually impossible to get essays deleted unless they are attack pages or completely vulgar, I suggest handling this a different way - deal with the citation of this essay in discussions, not the essay itself. When someone cites it, point out that citing the essay which calls a long post a "disruptive tactic where an editor attempts to shut down discussion" is a violation of the policy to Assume Good Faith, and ask them to strike through the citation. If they do not, then report them to WP:WQA for failing to assume good faith. Perhaps enough WQAs could establish a precedent that would discourage the use of this essay. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a user warning template that may be a useful response when "Walls of Text" is cited:

You recently cited the essay Walls of Text in a talk page discussion when referring to another editor's comments. You may not be aware that due to the wording of Walls of Text, using this essay in a talk page to refer to another user's comments violates the policy to Assume Good Faith, since the essay defines a Wall of Text as "a disruptive noticeboard and talk page tactic where an editor attempts to shut down discussion." Wikipedia policy requires that you not make the assumption that an editor is being deliberately disruptive or trying to shut down discussion just because his/her comment is lengthy. If you believe the comment is unnecessarily long, it is more civil to gently ask the editor to be more concise in your own words. Thank you. . Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut

I know it's not as short as a shortcut should be, but a majority of Talk page conversations seem to use "WP:WALLOFTEXT" rather than the less intuitive WALLS, CHUNK, or COTD, so I have added it to the mix. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]