View source for CZ Talk:Article mechanics

==Bold titles and introductions==
Perhaps Citizendium could cut down on the practice of starting articles with "An '''article title''' is a ...". Starting an article with a definition ("A '''dog''' is an animal that barks.") is fine, but it only makes sense for the kind of topic you would find in the dictionary. Somewhere along the line, Wikipedians got the idea that ''all'' articles must start with a definition, so now there are pages that begin like

:A '''list of widgets''' is a Wikipedia page that lists different [[widget]]s. Below ...

or

:The '''2006 terrorist bombing of Timbuktu''' was a [[terrorist]] [[bombing]] in [[Timbuktu]] that took place in [[2006]] and caused ...

Sometimes an editor realizes how redundant this is, and changes it into something like

:In '''[[2006]]''', '''[[terrorist]]s''' detonated a '''[[bomb]]''' in '''[[Timbuktu]]''' ...

as if no word in the article title were allowed to escape. In short, this convention causes redundancy and often makes article introductions awkward, sometimes almost unreadable.

But there's more: the convention also leads to the introduction of neologisms. When every article must start with a definition, one must come up with a definite term for every topic, even when no standard name exists. To take the subject area I'm most familiar with, math, there are plenty of mathematical results that are perfectly worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia but which are unfortunately "anonymous". Of course, ''some'' title is required for the article page, but this is not the same thing as endorsing a definition. If someone named Smith has proved a notable theorem on geometric progressions, it is perfectly fine to write an article with the title "Smith's theorem on geometric progressions". But it can be misleading to start the article with

:In [[mathematics]], '''Smith's theorem on geometric progressions''' says that ...

with that particular formatting. This is an inconsistency on Wikipedia since Wikipedia claims not to be prescriptive, but it is perhaps not a problem for Citizendium. Since Citizendium is expert-edited, it perhaps has the authority to be prescriptive about definitions. (Note, however, that I'm only talking about introducing names for ''obscure'' topics; definitions for ''controversial'' words like "terrorism" are a separate problem.) [[User:Fredrik Johansson|Fredrik Johansson]] 15:42, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Excellent points, Fredrik.  Clearly, we must be careful about how we formulate this particular rule.  Feel free to try your hand at it. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:01, 8 February 2007 (CST)

: I believe definitions are (very often) necessary, so I usually open my contributions with a defininition. I don't believe it must be a rule, however. The 'rule' (if we can call it a rule) should be the reader's needs. If a user of Citizendium looks for, say, ''2006 terrorist bombing of Timbuktu'', he does not need a definition. He's looking for (qualified) informations on a topic he already knows a little. Same for single species (e.g., the reader typing ''[[Amanita phalloides]]'' is hardly looking for a definition, he's most probably looking for an accurate description of the mushroom, e.g., because he feels a stomach pain...).
: On the other hand, cohomprensive topics must start with a definition. Take [[fractal]]: unless you are a specialist, the first thing you need to know (and you look for) is: what is a fractal? Same for [[pseudoscience]] in my view.
: And, should [[terrorism]] (or [[Intelligent Design]], i.e., very controversial topics) start with a definition? I say, yes. For example, an accurate definition of [[terrorism]] from an authoritative source could influence international relationships (a little). Not only these definitions are necessary, they also require a lot of responsability from the editors.
: Let me also say that this page is a good idea. Keep going! --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 03:56, 9 February 2007 (CST)

''Remark''. A related discussion takes place on [[Talk:Pseudoscience#Definition of Pseudoscience|Pseudoscience talk page]]. Should we move it here? --[[User:Aleksander Halicz|Alex Halicz]] [[User_Talk:Aleksander Halicz|<small><span style="color:#017701">(hello)</span></small>]] 13:36, 8 February 2007 (CST)

Probably... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:56, 8 February 2007 (CST)


User [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 18:56, 22 February 2007 (CST) offers the following introductory paragraphs of articles for which he started the Introductions.  Note the lack of formal definitions:

:'''Systems biology'''
:As an academic discipline, '''systems biology''' aims to explain, predict and control the properties, functions and behaviors<ref>Properties: e.g., shape, mass, volume, lifespan, ability to reproduce, etc.; functions: e.g., locomotion, phototropism, signaling, phagocytosis, etc.; behaviors: migration to sites of tissue injury, deceptive behavior, metastasis, etc.  The distinctions among those often blur.</ref> of biological, or living, [[system]]s—compartmentalized assemblages of interrelated, dynamically interacting, coordinated and hierarchically organized components.<ref name=kitano2002a>Kitano H (2002) [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5560/1662/ Systems biology: a brief overview] ''Science'' 295:1662-1664 PMID 11872829</ref>

:'''Life'''
:Biologists use the term '''life''' to refer to the process(es) comprising the activity of '''living''', and to the entities that embody that/those process(es)—complex adaptive systems.  The question turns on what precisely characterizes the 'process(es) of living'

:'''Potassium in Nutrition and Human Health'''
:To maintain [[health]], the diet of humans must contain '''potassium''', in its ionic form (K<sup>+</sup>).  In 2004-2006, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science<ref>Otten JJ, Hellwig JP, Meyers LD (editors) 2006) Dietary Reference Intakes: The Essential Guide to Nutrient Requirements. National Academies Press. Pages 370-379. ISBN 0-309-65646-X</ref> and its Food and Nutrition Board<ref name=napdri04>Panel on Dietary Reference Intakes for Electrolytes and Water. Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Food and Nutrition Board. Institute of Medicine of The National Academies (2004) [http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10925&page=186/ Dietary Reference Intakes For Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate] “Potassium” pp. 186-268. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.</ref> recommended that adult humans consume 4700 milligrams (mg) of potassium per day, which, calculated from the atomic mass of potassium (39.1 mg per mmol), amounts to 120 millimoles (mmol) potassium per day: 4700 mg/39.1 mg/mmol =120 mmol.  That intake of potassium exceeds estimates from recent surveys of average intakes by the general population.

== Pseudoscience example ==

''The following discussion took place on [[Pseudoscience]] talk page. To centralize our efforts it was moved here. Feel free to add to this.'' 

:Let's try to keep things in order. Defining 'pseudoscience' is related to the problem of demarcation, but is NOT the problem of demarcation itself. So I suppose there must be something in the definition which is more than "''a thing which is not science''".
:In my view, it is common sense that all 'pseudosciences' pretend to be sciences. This enter some of the definitions we find in dictionaries. I suggest we define pseudoscience according to those definitions. Such definition should try to be objective (i.e., no reference to someone that believes something) and should include the concept that a pseudoscience 'looks like' or 'pretend to be' a science. All agree? Should I try to post a new definition? Ciao! --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 04:20, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Some time back the article began:
''The term pseudoscience which combines the Greek pseudo (false), and the Latin scientia (knowledge), appears to have been used first in 1843 by Magendie, who referred to phrenology as "a pseudo-science of the present day" [1] In 1844 it was used in the Northern Journal of Medicine to describe "That opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognized as a branch of science, to have been a pseudo-science, composed merely of so-called facts, connected together by misapprehensions under the disguise of principles". ''
- this is from OED.
Before then it did start with an abbreviated dictionary definition (I think....). We might be going round in circles. Some editors feel it's better not to start with a dictionary type definition, but get straight into the tone of the article. I think I started out with a dictionary type definition but saw why others preferred a different approach.
I'd worry about the opening of the article later, as there are probably bigger issues about content to get right. Its easy to go round in circles about what is probably a point of style in the end. However, go ahead and post whatever you think, its always much easier to decide with an example rather than in theory[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:21, 7 February 2007 (CST)

:Thanks. I see your point, I don't want to go back to versions that were discarded already. I'll study the history page before posting. But not today, I'm going to spend many (expensive) hours at SEM. I anticipate I believe an article should indeed start with a definition. I believe the reader of 'pseudoscience' wants, first of all, know what 'pseudoscience' is, and then, ''maybe'', spend other time learning more. See you soon! --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 02:20, 8 February 2007 (CST)

We can have it both ways. If we were to adopt  a format that -at the very top of the page gave a "dictionary" definitions, or depending on the subject, the etymology of the word, followed by some kind of "break" and then the body of the article, a user would quickly learn where to focus tor information. Ideally the "top of the page" information would be in a smaller- or at least different- font. The break can be something like a triple horizontal line. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 09:41, 8 February 2007 (CST) addendum-another way to do it would to have a "top section" with a slightly different background color-like a light blue or yellow. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 10:09, 8 February 2007 (CST)

:Doesn't table of contents make a sufficient ''break'' itself? We may put a relatively short  definition before the first section. If we feel that dictionary-like essentials are not enough for a vast topic, we start the article with the first section entitled e.g. "Introduction" (this is at least what I'm trying to do in [[Fractal]]). Proportions may depend heavily on the topic. For example, in the present article the first two phrases would make a basic definition (that could be then slightly extended to include the first paragraph in an assertive way), the rest of the present "zeroth section" would make a good intro. Just a simple thought. --[[User:Aleksander Halicz|Alex Halicz]] [[User_Talk:Aleksander Halicz|<small><span style="color:#017701">(hello)</span></small>]] 13:28, 8 February 2007 (CST) 
:<s>PS. We are invited to discuss the issue on Citizendium Pilot talk:Article Mechanics|Article Mechanics talk page. Shouldn't it be copied (or at list linked) there?</s> ..done

:...After a while I thought I could actually do this to show what I mean on a concrete example (and I was curious how does it look and feel). Here it goes. Since I consider it only a proposal (and by no means the only solution), feel free to revert it (in addition to our usual open-for-modification model). --[[User:Aleksander Halicz|Alex Halicz]] [[User_Talk:Aleksander Halicz|<small><span style="color:#017701">(hello)</span></small>]] 13:48, 8 February 2007 (CST)

So at the moment the [[Pseudoscience]] article represents an outline of a solution for formating the front-matter. Any comments? --[[User:Aleksander Halicz|Alex Halicz]] [[User_Talk:Aleksander Halicz|<small><span style="color:#017701">(hello)</span></small>]] 02:38, 9 February 2007 (CST)

It's good, but I'm suggesting a convention that's a bit more compartmentalized Look again please, and comment. [[Pseudoscience]][[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 14:12, 9 February 2007 (CST)<br>
''(copied from [[Talk:Pseudoscience]])''
I changed it to a format of the kind I am talking about. This is just an example. I took the old introduction, which discusses the word derivation, and put it in a top section set apart by italic text in a smaller font. The idea is that one's eye can skip over this, or- if looking for the word derivation, focus on it. I think this is a useful format for most articles. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 14:11, 9 February 2007 (CST)

:I find "compartiments" idea interesting. Well, it separates dictionary-like info from a general lead. Just a technical note: perhaps it would be better if we could put the following three items  in  three boxes side by side: table of contents, "dictionary" definition and an image (if we have it). Now the "dictionary" part  ''looks like'' another disclaimer, the lead (perhaps the most important thing on the first sight) gets shifted down while we have quite a bit of blank space next to table of contents. I do not know if I'm skilled enough to actually make the technical changes I'm proposing, but I'll try. --[[User:Aleksander Halicz|Alex Halicz]] [[User_Talk:Aleksander Halicz|<small><span style="color:#017701">(hello)</span></small>]] 01:34, 10 February 2007 (CST)

:...Here it goes. The three boxes in a row do not fit (not enough space). I tried 2 by 2 arrangement to preserve the proposed "skip or focus" idea. The question is whether it looks better than the previous version. Generally, I'd like to give some prominence to the "main lead", since this is what I think most readers look for. From this point of view, putting the "dictionary lead" _not_ above the "main lead" looks intresting. An alternative solution (more radical, though) would be to move the dictionary essentials to a footnote. Another possibility is to include the dictionary esssentials as the last paragraph of the lead (small font, why not). Any thoughts? --[[User:Aleksander Halicz|Alex Halicz]] [[User_Talk:Aleksander Halicz|<small><span style="color:#017701">(hello)</span></small>]] 10:16, 10 February 2007 (CST)

Well, in [[Biology]] (you'd have to follow changes on the talk page going back to the first part of November,to see all the changes - we kept trying it different ways) I think it ended up as a foot note. But the "top space" text area has an advantage of being multi-purpose- it can serve as a spot for a definition, for an etymology, for disambiguation or all three. Take a look at [[Vertebral subluxation]] please, where disambigiation is a particular concern because of the content of the article. This is a bedrock notion (pretty much) in the "alternative medicine" of chiropractic which happens to use words also used by physicians with, as it happens, opposite views. We have been struggling with giving chiropractic the respect it deserves, without misleading a user into confusing a diagnosis of "subluxation of the vertebral jpoint" that they might receive from a neurosurgeon, say, as being described in [[Vertebral subluxation]]. This top text area seems to serve nicely. I think that the more I see it, the more natural it looks. By the way- vertebral subluxation is up for approval so nows your chance to comment! [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 10:58, 10 February 2007 (CST)

== Semantic info boxes generally ==

I am not opposed to the general direction you are taking this in, but I think we need to take a step back and think about some general principles and make sure this is indeed a good direction to move in.  Perhaps it is my background in theoretical ethics, I am always thinking about whether policies can be generalized.  The idea here is that there is something special, unusual, about what we might call ''semantic'' information, and ''because'' it is different from the bulk of the article, it can usefully be placed away from the main part of the article.

Somebody might say that it is possible to classify all different kinds of information--historical, critical, artistic, etc.--and that each deserves its own special box, say, each with a different distinctive color.  But we can all agree that that would be silly.  The question then is why ''semantic'' information is thought to be ''so'' importantly different that it ''should'' be given this different treatment.  What's the reason?  Well, I think it's something like this.  When someone is trying to learn about a topic in general, all this business about the mere meanings and etymologies and histories of words is merely a distraction.  If you put semantic info in the front (in the body of the article), then you defer the reader from seeing the more interesting stuff.  If you put it anywhere else--except perhaps the very end--then you interrupt the flow of the article.  But it would be better to put it at the very beginning, not the very end, because semantic information is introductory information, if any information is.

Philosophers since Quine and his contemporaries have debated whether a viable distinction can be drawn between merely semantic information and other ("synthetic") kinds of information.  While I personally think such a distinction can be drawn (and I am probably in a minority of philosophers on the question), I think a similar point can be usefully applied here.  In an encyclopedia article, the information considered merely semantic ''does'' tend to shade, by degrees as it were, into more "substantive" information.  In the case of [[pseudoscience]], we see already that the body of the article itself begins with a definition, and another definition appears but as part of a historical source quotation in the semantic information box.  Furthermore, the opening paragraphs go on at some length to clarify the concept, which some might regard as semantic information.

Maybe you want to say that it's not just any old semantic information, but ''etymology'' and ''supporting historical quotations'' (a la the OED) that belong in the semantic information box.  If so, then I would ask: is it always the case, or only usually, that we will want such information prised apart from the main article?  That seems to depend upon another question: will this info usually be irrelevant to the substance of the article?  But, really, to a certain extent all encyclopedia articles particularly on general topics are grab-bags of disconnected information.  The reason I enjoyed the "Biology" article so much is that it had a coherent narrative that nicely brought together all that otherwise disconnected information.  We should aim at ''that'' as much as possible.  The real question, then, is whether etymology and supporting historical quotations (assuming we want them) will usually ''not'' find a sensible place within any unifying narrative available for article topics.  If ''not,'' then the idea of semantic information boxes might be justified.  Otherwise, the information should be worked into the article narrative.  The current introduction of the [[philosophy]] article shows how semantic information can naturally be used to introduce a topic--have a look.  I think earlier drafts of "pseudoscience" did this as well.

I'd say that if the etymology/origin of the word or phrase is ''interesting,'' then clearly it can be coherently and usefully worked into the article by using it to introduce the substance of the topic.  The etymology of "pseudoscience" can be used this way.  If the etymology is not so interesting or revealing (as in "Biology"), then simply include a brief parenthetical note: "from bios + logos" (that sort of thing).

It seems to me--though I don't feel strongly about this, by the way, despite the length of this comment!--it would be better to include information that ''can'' be included, in this way, rather than to prise it off.

Historical quotations illustrating the original uses of a word pose a special case.  Since we are not attempting to reproduce the OED here in the encyclopedia project, there is no obvious obligation on us as encyclopedia article writers to produce such quotations.  So I'd say: if such quotations are particularly helpful in explaining the meaning of a concept, then by all means, include them in the body of the article.  Otherwise, omit them.

Of course, you might disagree with my premise that we are not attempting to reproduce anything like the OED here.  You might think that we ''should'' have, uniformly, that sort of semantic information for every article (about a concept).  Anyway...duty calls and I'll leave it there.

I'm not specifically asking you to do anything, just trying to make a contribution to the debate. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:28, 10 February 2007 (CST)

P.S. Every new widget on a page adds clutter to a page.  Simplicity and cleanness is valuable, hence widgets must pay their own way. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:31, 10 February 2007 (CST)


==comment==

This page should have been completed before the site was thrown open; most of it still remains unfilled.

==Dates==

Is there a CZ standard for writing dates? I see these two formats used most frequenting: day month year (e.g. 27 September 1968) and month day, year (e.g. September 27, 1968).  Also, the Wikipedia standard is to linkify dates and years (e.g. [[September 27]], [[1968]]) - is this a CZ standard, too? --[[User:Steve Mount|steve802]] 13:46, 2 March 2007 (CST)
:The WP standard is only to link some dates in certain cases where there is a value to doing so. However, many dates in WP are linked with no apparent reasoning. I think we should only link dates if there is a purpose to doing so. In most cases, I would struggle to think of a purpose for a date link though a few examples might be 9/11 or the years 1066 or 1945. In such cases the link would have to connect relevant articles. So for example "The Fitz Allan family came to England William The conqueror in [[1066]]" would be appropriate because that person was actually involved in some of the major events of that year but "Irene Ducas was born in [[1066]] and die  died February 19, 1123" would not, in my view,  be a valid use of the link since an article discussing the events of 1066 would provide little (no) additional information about Irene Ducas since the notable events of here life happened after 1066. [[User:Derek Harkness|Derek Harkness]] 07:31, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

== Should abstracts have a place in Citizendium? An argument challenging encyclopedia tradition. ==

An encyclopedia is not a collection of crib sheets; it is as much about writing good prose as about giving verifiable information. If the latter were the only aim one could arguably structure a computer based encylopedia as a hard fact name-and-number database, with a language friendly SQL query engine as its front end, and “articles” being “written” by completing data entry forms.

Nowhere is the conflict between good writing and transfer of information more apparent than in the lead section of articles written strictly according to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LEAD Wikipedia introduction style guide]. It is not that the writers are necessarily incompetent, it is rather that following that give-all-the-info-in-six-sentences style almost without exception makes for poor reading – at the extreme resembling outlines of class notes for high school more than prose. Never the less, it has become a standard at Wikipedia – a “consensus” guide arrived at after extensive interaction between a mass of unknown persons of varied intellect, language skills and logical abilities. This bothers me, since a conclusion drawn from such input has validity. That validity lies in the qualification that the contributors share of being internet users of information, and they presumably know what they want. My perception is that they responded to the identified want by throwing out centuries of human style and bringing in study notes.

Was this the best response? I think not. I asked myself what other opinions about introductions or leads would be, specifically those expressed by persons who appreciate good writing for what it is, emphasising the joy of reading good prose while learning from it. So I have been going through recommendations from various universities, colleges, and training sites about the introduction to theses, term papers and essays. One thing these guides have in common is that not one – whether from departments of language, graphical arts or mathematical statistics - recommends that the lead or introduction to an information article be a self-sufficient summary of the article. The dominant idea is that the leading paragraphs introduce the thesis of the work. The thesis here is meant in a broad sense, not “this is a summary of all the facts”, but rather “this is the context of the subject that I am going to discuss”, the idea that gives unity, coherence and thrust to the article. An example of such a “thesis” would be, for a hypothetical ''History of China'' article: “The difficulty of understanding Chinese society: How a study of the history of China gives contextual meaning to the people, politics and economy of China as it is today”. From this flows the structure, factual content, conclusions, and comments included in the article.

A [http://contentselect.pearsoned.com/unit12.html Pearson Education article] notes that “Generally, the thesis statement will appear in the final paragraph of the general opening”, and a number of the university writing guides affirm that the thesis is usually left to the last part of the introduction. I interpret this as meaning that one does not jump in feet first, staking a claim and then fighting to keep it, but rather paints a scenario, and then leads the reader to where the thesis fits in. There is a certain deceptive gentleness about such a style which makes for easy reading, corresponding to the natural art of story-telling.

Contrasted with this intellectual and artistic goal of a well-written lead, there is the idea of the all-in-one abstract-summary-introduction-lead, where the lead can be taken as a self-sufficient description of the content of the article. That is a push more than a lead. In Wikipedia this idea is so pervasive that there has even been a suggestion that a stand-alone abridged version Wikipedia CD could be made up of leads to articles only. I have not come across any guide, other than the Wikipedia pages, where such a requirement is set or recommended.

The crucial point to remember is that this opinion on a way of doing things would not have evolved in a vacuum; it is a response to a need. The need is that the person looking for information on the internet should be able to read a reliable abstract of an article, to avoid wasting hours reading through unsuitable papers.

My thesis is that Citizendium would add value for the reader, as well as gain prestige as an innovator and leader, if it were to implement a ''policy of abstracts'' - as opposed to fact filled introductions - for its approved articles. I believe that the long-worked-at requirements for article leads that Wikipedia developed is the wrong response to the right perception of a modern need. I believe that Citizendium should introduce abstracts of longer approved articles – “longer” here meant by analogy with journals which require abstracts for articles, but not for “shorts” like letters to the editor or book reviews. This is a more sophisticated response to the need which those Wikipedians correctly identified.

A look through some of the articles being worked on shows that disagreement about what should or should not be in a lead is a frequent point of debate, taking up much space and time. This deflects effort which should be directed at the rest of the article. A benefit to authors of having a system of coherent abstracts, as opposed to having to formulate definition-laden, fact-repeating leads, is that they would be empowered to get on with the work of writing structured, coherent, informative prose for the articles. Arguments about what should be in the abstract could be kept to discussion pages, not hampering the article itself; it may be composed before the article, and later modified, or left to when the article is considered suitable for approval (when it should almost write itself).

There could be other spin-offs from the introduction of abstracts. The practice of writing abstracts of articles could replace the phenomenon of a stub, eliminating the stub altogether, to the extent that one could discuss the idea of having approved abstracts, as entities separate from approved articles. These would be something along the line of ''better-than-stub approved place holders'', while authors get on with the job of polishing the articles on separate pages.

I believe that the use of article abstracts may well become standard practice to the field of internet encyclopedia publishing, and that Citizendium can lead this change.

[[User:Christo_Muller|Christo Muller]] [[User_talk:Christo_Muller|(Talk)]] 13:51, 4 March 2007 (CST)


:I believe this might reveal a great idea. Think of this: scientific journals ended up to this after centuries of experience in publishing, so there must be something very good in abstracts after all. I believe abstracts could make long articles much more readable.
:Christo, why don't you start a thread in CZ forums? I suggest this idea must be discussed deeply, and I don't know how many of us have this page in their watchlist. --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 13:09, 6 March 2007 (CST)

::Yet, ''should'' not the introduction serve largely as an abstract in ''an encyclopedia''?  Perhaps that convention has its very good reasons too. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 23:44, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Unless you know exactly what you are going to write in a complete article, you can't write the abstract first- chronologically. That can only come for the organically grown article ''after'' it is finished-at least in rough draft. So-though I think it is a good idea, it's something more to add once an article is in an approved state. Often, we are arguing-the first paragraph is not an abstract- not because abstracts are not good-but because the first paragraph so often becomes a bone of contention in edits - with the ever dreaded subtractive rather than additive efforts of various authors. Also- for some articles the abstract is a really great idea- like say for a biography. But for the more essay like introductions to broad subjects-like Pain or Biology, abstracts may not be so helpful. My thoughts. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 00:22, 7 March 2007 (CST)

:Agree on the first point. In fact, I was even thinking of editors involved in the writing of the abstract - if not in charge of it - once the article is nominated for approval. Some journals do not have a real abstract, but the first paragraph serves as abstract (Nature, as far as I remember, has this policy). This is typical of journals allowing short space for articles. I believe an "explicit" abstract or a cohomprensive first paragraph both do it. Yet the real point here is to make more readable long articles. Perhaps approved articles are already so structured, but would it be good to suggest such structure in some policy pages? --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 00:43, 7 March 2007 (CST)

== Leads ==

As a result of a disagreement at [[God]], I thought that I'd raise this here.  Should articles (and especially lead sections) give (at least initial) definitions in terms of the most common usage among (native) English-speakers, or in terms of the most common usage universally? --[[User:Peter J. King|Peter J. King]] <span style="background:black">&nbsp;[[User talk:Peter J. King|<font color="yellow"><b>Talk</b></font>]]&nbsp;</span> 10:17, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

If the question of how a term should be defined is very controversial, then probably no single definition should be offered right up front (as [[god]] does not).  But for purposes of determining what items might be offered up first as examples, or what definitions might be placed first in a list of definitions, I maintain that by ''initially'' following the usage most common among native English speakers--or whatever the relevant constituency is--we avoid the most conflict in the long run.  We must create a widely generalizable principle here, because people will return to this page looking to settle all sorts of debates.  If we make it a general rule to follow the usage of most native English speakers (for very general topics like "god"), given that they will make up the majority of our contributors and users, we will avoid most conflict in the long run.  Furthermore, if this matter of "pride of place" is very generally understood, then it will come to be seen as perfectly neutral.  The reason the Christian God is placed up front in [[god]] is simply that that's what most native English speakers understand by the word--no other reason.

And, just to forestall those who think we are discussing anything more serious or controversial, let me assure you that we are ''only'' talking about "what things are placed first."  This does not mean we are deciding how whole articles are to be biased.  This is just a general way to resolve a ''remarkably common'' source of conflict. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:03, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

== Narrative coherence and flow ==
I took the liberty to polish some of the wording in this section. [[User:Andrew A. Skolnick|Andrew A. Skolnick]] 12:34, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

== webcitation.org ==
I'd like to suggest CZ obtain membership with http://www.webcitation.org for reasons that are obvious. In the meantime, individual authors and editors can use it just the same. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 15:20, 2 April 2007 (CDT)