Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Introductions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Overhaul 2 New members 3 Joined 4 Sample Introduction

[edit] Overhaul

I've revived this project and overhauled the project page--Pheonix15 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that someone else feels this is a problem too. Unfortunately, my life off Wikipedia causes my Wikipedia participation to occur in bursts. And since starting the project, I haven't been able to promote it or carry out its more regular tasks. However, I still have a lot of ideas concerning it. If the project could bring in enough people, we could get somewhere.

For one thing, I think the project needs to overhaul all guidelines and/or help pages on writing intros/lead sections. Certain topics or types of articles also have "special needs" when it comes to intros. For instance, all biographical articles need certain factoids — I mean "little" facts, not apocryphal claims — such as birth and death dates. While some of these things have already been worked out, they may not be documented well enough or easily accessible to newbies. Creating partnerships with wikiprojects that work on particular topics or types of articles would be key to making guidlines for which factoids are important and how they should be presented in the intro.

I also have some ideas that either require changes by the developers or major templating. For one thing, I have encountered articles with lead sections that could be divided into two parts:

1. An actual intro that should be before the table of contents.
2. A section of a general nature that goes beyond an intro, but can't easily be given a title for a section heading, and should be after the TOC.

I'm not saying that most articles need that, nor that it's necessarily desirable, but occasionally there are some that just don't seem to work any other way.

Another idea concerns topics that are so large they have spin-off articles. For instance Language. As time goes by, the section on the main article that usually serves as an intro, starts to differ quite a bit from the intro at the spin-off article. It would be nice if the text were the same (except when it really needs to be different), and transcluded on the main article.

At any rate, there's a lot of ground work to be done getting guidlines and other ideas in order, even before the massive work of implementing them across Wikipedia. —Tox 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

An ingeneous method around that. The ToC can be moved between these two intros by placing __TOC__ where you want the ToC to be. You can look here for more--Pheonix15 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

We also need to attract more members. An ad in one of these would be good:

Wikipedia Ads	file info – show another – #106

I asked Miranda for one. A reading list for members would be good as well--Pheonix15 18:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New members

Someone should take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Lead Paragraph Cleanups. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joined

I used a variation of the userbox:

and considered using this one:

I support the idea of people working together to improve intros. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, We're kind've inactive now as the main members are working elsewhere. Maybe you could revive the project, as I did with WP:HIST. I can help out but I'm too busy to work on it full time--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sample Introduction

To me, our sample introduction didn't fully capture what we're trying to do with this project, so I rewrote it (sample intro 2). Here are my thoughts:

• Clarity: The first sentence of the original is too dense and technical. (A typewriter is a mechanical, electromechanical, or electronic device with a set of "keys" that, when pressed...) If I've never seen or heard of a typewriter, I've just read a lot of words that still don't help me conceptualize it. I rewrote the first sentence: A typewriter is a desktop or portable tool for printing text on a piece of paper. I've simplified a lot, but now I only have to read this one sentence to know what a typewriter does. Other details (like the fact that it can be mechanical or electronic) can follow without overwhelming me from the get-go.

• Scale: The original doesn't tell me how big a typewriter is. Many people don't understand something new until they can picture it in context. When I tell my grandmother that a mainframe is a kind of computer, she doesn't realize it's any bigger than the iMac in her living room. She wouldn't understand why it's expensive or why it sits on a raised floor in an air-conditioned room. She might think I have one at home. When I describe how big it is, though, she can contextualize it better. This may seem like a minor detail, but I said a typewriter is a desktop or portable tool so that it has meaningful scale in the reader's mind right from the start.

• Notability: The original establishes notability in the 3rd paragraph. I moved it up to the 2nd sentence. Once I know what a typewriter does, the next question on my mind is why it was important. Only after I've answered that question do I care that a typist used to be called a typewriter.

• Timeframe: The original establishes when typewriters were commonly used. That's important information, and I've kept it towards the top in my rewrite. The original also says specifically when typewriters went into decline. That's also key information, but as a more granular detail, I've left it towards the end of the intro.

• Usefulness: I know now that typewriters were used a lot in the 20th century, and that makes them notable, but why were they used? In my rewrite, I said they give more legible and faster results than handwriting. That may seem obvious, but that's why they were developed in the first place.

If you like my revision, then let's link our main project page to the revised sample. Otherwise, let's discuss it further.

-- Wechselstrom (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)