CZ Talk:Lemma article

I added this page to encourage people to start lemma articles. Lemma articles seem like a much less cluttery way of putting up definitional stubs. –Tom Morris 07:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Forum discussion

There is an extensive discussion of lemma articles in the forum. --Peter Schmitt 00:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused

This is what confuses me:

---> # Create a definition subpage with a definition of the subject. I'm not sure what a "definition subpage" is or how to create it. Does this mean creating a definition? I'm baffled. I want to create a slew of lemma articles and, at present, my sense is to: create an article (with the subpages template at the top), and that's it. No metadata, no related articles subpages, etc. Is what I'm creating a lemma? No definition subpage. Will I be doing it right? That's my di-lemma. :) -- --Thomas Wright Sulcer 14:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: I think I get it now. The idea is to create the main page with ONLY the "subpages" template at the

\top. After that's created, then click on the "definitions" icon in red, to write a definition subpage. OK, I think I understand it, but this isn't what I want to do. My thinking is that subpages confuse the Google crawlers; what I want to do is create simple articles (many, a "thicket") on a variety of inter-related subjects to see if it boosts CZ traffic. Definition-subpage articles won't do.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 14:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not convinced subpages confuse the crawlers, remember that clicking the red "r" on a lemma display gives you a Related Articles page -- as long as the crawlers find Related Articles, what's the problem? The thickets should be rooted in Related Articles pages anyway. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My hunch (unproven) is that all types of subpages -- "related articles" "definitions" "bibliography" etc confuse the crawlers, since there are two steps instead of one when linking from article to article. The way Wikipedia does it is this: article page (with linking term RIGHT on the page) ---> next article page. It's direct. What CZ does is this: article page --> subpage:related article ---> next article page. It adds a step. Given Wikipedia's terrific web presence, I'm thinking that if we do anything different (particularly when CZ web presence is lackluster) that we better have a good reason why it makes sense. On my PageRank studies, I routinely found "Related articles" pages coming to the forefront of a google search -- that is a "Related article" beat out the actual article on a SERP page. If the CZ way is to keep using the subpages, I can go along with that, but I want more direct links to the article page itself in the form of "see also" or "bibliography" or "further information" as much as possible. I'm not saying that I won't do the definition or related articles subpages; but I want both, if possible, to improve web presence. If I do this, will anybody object.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 16:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

But what problem would there be if the Related Articles page came up first in the search, as long as it comes up? I'm hesitant to be changing look and feel based on assumptions about web engines, especially when it is one of our WP differentiators. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In our insta-please world, in which every mouseclick requires effort, it's one more reason which might confuse a possible reader. Readers have to click twice to see a possible CZ article (which takes time -- after arriving at the "related articles" page, they have to figure out how to get to the main page). A hungry-for-info persistent reader will eventually find the CZ page, but why create extra fuss? I know people around here are reluctant to change. So I won't mind if my articles have subpages. What I'm saying is that I'd like (as much as possible) direct links to other articles within CZ on the article page in addition -- that is, on articles at CZ that I write. The idea is to improve web exposure. And I don't see how subpages makes CZ better or "differentiates" us. IF my hunch is right and the subpage stuff hurts our web exposure, it's one more example of CZ shooting itself in the foot here.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 17:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) To guide people who come from Wikipedia is to show them the differences from Wikipedia, differences include emphasizing that we use Related Pages and Bibliography subpages rather than See Also and Further Reading. The more that the pages mimic Wikipedia, the more difficult it tends to be to get such authors to grasp our format. Certainly, when an article falls into a workgroup where I'm an Editor, I will move such headings to subpages, and know other Editors (and Citizens) that do so.

Maybe we are shooting ourselves in the foot, but, until an Editorial Council is in place and examines policies, I don't want to be changing our style on the fly. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But may I ask: if you come across articles that I write, could you wait a month or two before jumbling them around? Or, instead of "moving" parts to the "related articles" or "bibliography", copy them there, and leave a copy on the page? I want to see if it has any effect in boosting web presence. My section: Greek/Roman mythology regarding the Aeneid. I'm trying to do a thicket of articles here, and as an experiment, I'm trying to see if I can get any web presence at all. And if it works, then it may be possible to make a case to the editorial council.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 18:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)