Category talk:Healing Arts Editors: Difference between revisions
imported>D. Matt Innis (Comments please!) |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Anyway, considering the controversy that can erupt in healing arts articles, I wanted to see how everyone feels about turning some variation of "the lead is not an abstract" idea into a format that we use on our articles. [[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 12:55, 26 February 2007 (CST) | Anyway, considering the controversy that can erupt in healing arts articles, I wanted to see how everyone feels about turning some variation of "the lead is not an abstract" idea into a format that we use on our articles. [[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 12:55, 26 February 2007 (CST) | ||
Let me answer this on [[Talk:Jesus]]. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:09, 26 February 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 14:09, 26 February 2007
Hey guys,
Christo just made an interesting statement of the Jesus talk page and Gareth clarified it some moreconcerning the lead in our articles. For me this seems like what could be a major differentiating feature between WP articles and CZ articles. WP requirements that the lead become an "abstract" "definition" of what is to follow is probably one of the most destructive elements of the writing process. It breaks the flow of an article and more often than not, sets an antagonistic tone for the rest of the article. I would venture to say that this method is not an efficient method for introducing a reader to a subject.
Anyway, considering the controversy that can erupt in healing arts articles, I wanted to see how everyone feels about turning some variation of "the lead is not an abstract" idea into a format that we use on our articles. Matt Innis (Talk) 12:55, 26 February 2007 (CST)
Let me answer this on Talk:Jesus. --Larry Sanger 13:09, 26 February 2007 (CST)