While having the extra information is good we need to decide on how much is needed, considering how complex this node it I think this makes sense.
Any thoughts @Campbell Barton (campbellbarton) @Tobias Heinke (TobiasH) before actually review this?

Oops forgot to hit submit.

I have to say, it was quite a shot in the dark from me, having no idea whether you would want that or not. I know it is quite detailed, (more than most pages in the manual, I believe). In any case you are welcome to keep it, refactor it or split it out completely into a separate page.

If you think something should be fixed or improved, you can let me know.

I think more explanation and especially example renders are a big improvement, but would prefer it to be more to the point. Just explain "this is the type of look it creates, which is useful for X" and additionally for the technical users "this is how it works".

Why something needs explanation, whether the name is confusing, why something is odd, how it's similar to this other thing or not, .. for the most part that can be left out. As this is a reference manual few people will read entire pages, they will just skim the page or search for a particular parameter or noise type.

I didn't review the whole text, just some comments to see what I mean.

@Brecht Van Lommel (brecht) I have been a little bit to casual in places, huh? Well, valid point, I guess. I can reformulate stuff more formally.

About moving up the common parameter description: Sure? As that part is already lengthy, I wanted to avoid breaking the compactness of the original version of the page, but I don't care either way.

About describing how stuff looks, I went with 'looks like this, looks like that' as I found it hard to do in another way. I mean how to describe abstract patterns? Replacing 'looks like' with 'is good for' should work in several cases.

Updated version is there. Tried to comply better with Brecht's feedback on stylistic matters, plus some other polishing and grammar and typo fixes.

Detail - Controls how many instances (layers) of noise textures are combined. Each subsequent instance has a smaller scale and brings more small details.
Lacunarity - The scaling factor for each subsequent instance of the noise relative to the previous one. (When setting it to 1 all instances have the same scale.)
Dimension - Controls the intensity (amplitude) of the different instances of noise. Setting it to zero will use the same amplitudes for all noise instances. Larger values will reduce the intensity of finer (larger-scaled) instances, making smaller details less visible.

Tip: If you use only two layers (Detail = 2), you can easily see how the Lacunarity and Dimension parameters change the scale and intensity of the second layer.

Offset - The summand is added to each instance of the noise. (for Hybrid/Ridged Multifractal and Hetero Terrain)
Gain - The multiplication factor to the change of amplitude of the finer noise instances. (for Hybrid/Ridged Multifractal)

Type - Specifies different methods to combine the multiple noise instances.

And see also: https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/dev/render/blender_render/textures/types/procedural/musgrave.html

@Yevgeny Makarov (jenkm) I'd say the description of Gain is inaccurate, but it's hard to find a precise non-mathematical one. Otherwise sounds good to me.

About the Blender-Render version, it could use improvement, too, but it's probably not worth the effort, considering the whole renderer will be ripped out with 2.8.

I agree that it is not worth it

rBM4296 was committed with some of this information, do we want to add the rest?

In D3455#80638, @Aaron Carlisle (Blendify) wrote:

rBM4296 was committed with some of this information, do we want to add the rest?

Just wondering whether my updated version has actually been uploaded into this ticket. What I see below is still the initial one I sent. Can you somehow see that there is a second one?

This is all too detailed explanation, and in general, does not help to understand the essence.
Here we need examples of real application of these textures,
rather than many screenshots of the texture itself with different parameters.

In D3455#80179, @omgold (omgold) wrote:

About the Blender-Render version, it could use improvement, too, but it's probably not worth the effort, considering the whole renderer will be ripped out with 2.8.

In D3455#80181, @Aaron Carlisle (Blendify) wrote:

I agree that it is not worth it

These textures are also used regardless of the renderer, such as the Displace modifier, and are still in 2.8, it seems.