This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I believe that a better name would be Lede Improvement. It sounds better. Look: Lede Improvement Wikiproject. Also, I think every word should be capitalized. Anyway, that's just my opinion. Let's get this started! Tetra quark ( don't be shy) 04:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I was going to add it in Universe but it didn't fit.
That'd be our first task, because that lead is a monstrosity Tetra quark ( don't be shy) 02:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a debate here on how big the lead for the article on the colour Blue should be and what should be in it : Noyster (talk), 13:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest submitting something like this to the Signpost:
New WikiProject - Lede Improvement Team
Over 14,000 articles need their lede (or "lead") improving. More than 2,000 have no lede at all! The lede is the most-read part of any article. It is the introductory part that tells you briefly what the article is about, what it contains, and whether you want to read further. So improving ledes is one of the most important improvement tasks you can do. And anyone can do it - normally no research is needed, as the aim is to sum up the content already in the article itself.
A new WikiProject, WikiProject Lede Improvement Team, has been launched to bring together those who want to help with this work. Simple steps:
: Noyster (talk), 13:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I went to list this project in the directory and noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Lead section cleanup already exists, though it is inactive. I'm not sure how I missed it the first time I looked there. I believe the preferred course of action in this case is actually to revive the dead project and not create a new one. Either way some sort of merger of the two projects is probably in order. Any ideas? Discant X 00:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
In regards to handling the other WikiProject, I am going to contact the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lead section cleanup on their talk pages to see if they are interested in joining this group instead. Discant X 08:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Lead Improvement Team | ||||
|
- someone needs to do some template tweaking - and if you are merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Lead section cleanup - a good template tweaker can show you some transfer and crossover techniques. satusuro 09:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Probably too late now, but for future reference: It's generally best to re-energize/overhaul old projects, rather than starting new ones and abandoning the old one - because there will already be many people watchlisting the old one, and it will have incoming links, and useful old discussions on the talkpage. The same goes for any documentation pages! Fragmentation and stale-ness are problems that need to be constantly worked against. :-) I'll add hatnotes at the old project/talkpage, pointing here. Quiddity ( talk) 04:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a perennial discussion about making a "concise" wikipedia. I tried to summarize the existing options, particularly using Wikidata definitions, and automated extracts from the lede of articles, over at m:Concise Wikipedia#A summary of existing short-options, using an example. This is particularly relevant for search engine excerpts, and for internal tools such as Navpopups and Hovercards. I thought you might be interested, and I also wanted to say kudos for taking on a good task. :-) Quiddity ( talk) 04:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I thought this project might like to be aware of the lede development happening at WP:TTF, the Translation Task Force for medicine. This group has a goal to have 1000 health articles have a good lede, so that they can send those ledes to be translated into other languages which perhaps do not have health articles at all. Already many hundreds of articles have been translated.
One big point of divergence here is that in medicine, information is more sensitive, so this group has found a need to use citations in the lede. Using citations in the lede is also helpful if the intent is to translate an English lede, where there is text in the body of an article, to another language, where the translated English lede is not unlikely to be most of the article and therefore needs citations.
It would be a help to that project if this Lede Improvement Team could consider joining in a policy change discussion to require citations within the ledes of articles. There will be a time, perhaps soon, when a lot of English language content will be translated into other languages, and when that happens, it will start with ledes, and English ledes will all be problematic for having no citations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Are highly visible articles with short leads (compare with green and blue) - have started expanding red, but some consensus would be good on talk page. folks are welcome to take a look and opine. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I have long given more attention to intros than to sections, for reasons already discussed. And wow, some articles look like nobody is paying attention to such considerations. Social science topics are the ones where I've noticed it most, often starting off with a bucketful of poorly organized and abstruse academic jargon. Jim.henderson ( talk) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Another editor and I have been discussing the practice of using alternate names for pharmaceuticals in the ledes of their articles. We both agreed that we didn't feel sufficiently confident about policy to claim that one of us was "right" and the other "wrong", but we did agree that the subject might benefit from some wider input, and created a section on WT:MED ("Drug names, esp. for generics", topic 49) to get said input. As this group here (the LIT) appears to be specialized in the business of lede sections (!) I wanted to mention the discussion and invite anyone who reads this to check out the discussion there and drop a few cents in. Our discussion has been extremely cordial, and I think we both just want to have our peers take a quick look at our thought processes and share their own thoughts— and either way the discussion goes, in the end, will be fine with either of us! As long as it "goes"! Anyhow, come check us out if you get a moment. We'd appreciate some words from the Lede Section Mafia (as it were). Thank you! KDS4444 Talk 05:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It would be very helpful if we stopped promoting the term "lede". There have been multiple lengthy discussions about this at WT:LEAD, a page that carefully notes that treating WP leads like journalistic ledes is a mistake. The spelling is an Americanism anyway, and a specifically American journalism neologism. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Has this been studied? One could determine if it was true by videotaping peoples use of Wikipedia. Have not see this published though.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
New contest...will run in January. See Wikipedia:Take the lead! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Would any members of this project be interested in talking about your work for the Signpost? I'd like to hear some personal reflections and what you think are the most pressing concerns facing the project. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 16:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
On the page George Michael, an editor added to the last paragraph the information concerning his death. I separated that into its own paragraph. Another editor reverted it. That's cool, but I'm wondering if there is any policy or guideline on how information in the lead should be presented when it comes to paragraphs. It doesn't look like it, so I thought I'd ask your team about it. StarHOG ( talk) 16:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly.Of course Michael's death is the fact about him uppermost in our minds now, but we have to think how the article will look to readers in ten years' time. His death is well covered in the article body, and doesn't need expansion in the lead: so I think the lead is best left as it is. Hope this helps : Noyster (talk), 20:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that search engines show a snippet of a Wikipedia page, with link to the article. Geoflow for Android, does that, too and I imagine the practice is pretty common. Anybody know whether they all pick the same, or whether it's always the intro and only the intro? Jim.henderson ( talk) 19:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Could someone please improve the HCA lede? It fails to summarize the body of the text. There should be a mention of the very lengthy section of the "fraud investigations". Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 23:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I believe that a better name would be Lede Improvement. It sounds better. Look: Lede Improvement Wikiproject. Also, I think every word should be capitalized. Anyway, that's just my opinion. Let's get this started! Tetra quark ( don't be shy) 04:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I was going to add it in Universe but it didn't fit.
That'd be our first task, because that lead is a monstrosity Tetra quark ( don't be shy) 02:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a debate here on how big the lead for the article on the colour Blue should be and what should be in it : Noyster (talk), 13:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest submitting something like this to the Signpost:
New WikiProject - Lede Improvement Team
Over 14,000 articles need their lede (or "lead") improving. More than 2,000 have no lede at all! The lede is the most-read part of any article. It is the introductory part that tells you briefly what the article is about, what it contains, and whether you want to read further. So improving ledes is one of the most important improvement tasks you can do. And anyone can do it - normally no research is needed, as the aim is to sum up the content already in the article itself.
A new WikiProject, WikiProject Lede Improvement Team, has been launched to bring together those who want to help with this work. Simple steps:
: Noyster (talk), 13:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I went to list this project in the directory and noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Lead section cleanup already exists, though it is inactive. I'm not sure how I missed it the first time I looked there. I believe the preferred course of action in this case is actually to revive the dead project and not create a new one. Either way some sort of merger of the two projects is probably in order. Any ideas? Discant X 00:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
In regards to handling the other WikiProject, I am going to contact the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lead section cleanup on their talk pages to see if they are interested in joining this group instead. Discant X 08:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Lead Improvement Team | ||||
|
- someone needs to do some template tweaking - and if you are merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Lead section cleanup - a good template tweaker can show you some transfer and crossover techniques. satusuro 09:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Probably too late now, but for future reference: It's generally best to re-energize/overhaul old projects, rather than starting new ones and abandoning the old one - because there will already be many people watchlisting the old one, and it will have incoming links, and useful old discussions on the talkpage. The same goes for any documentation pages! Fragmentation and stale-ness are problems that need to be constantly worked against. :-) I'll add hatnotes at the old project/talkpage, pointing here. Quiddity ( talk) 04:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a perennial discussion about making a "concise" wikipedia. I tried to summarize the existing options, particularly using Wikidata definitions, and automated extracts from the lede of articles, over at m:Concise Wikipedia#A summary of existing short-options, using an example. This is particularly relevant for search engine excerpts, and for internal tools such as Navpopups and Hovercards. I thought you might be interested, and I also wanted to say kudos for taking on a good task. :-) Quiddity ( talk) 04:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I thought this project might like to be aware of the lede development happening at WP:TTF, the Translation Task Force for medicine. This group has a goal to have 1000 health articles have a good lede, so that they can send those ledes to be translated into other languages which perhaps do not have health articles at all. Already many hundreds of articles have been translated.
One big point of divergence here is that in medicine, information is more sensitive, so this group has found a need to use citations in the lede. Using citations in the lede is also helpful if the intent is to translate an English lede, where there is text in the body of an article, to another language, where the translated English lede is not unlikely to be most of the article and therefore needs citations.
It would be a help to that project if this Lede Improvement Team could consider joining in a policy change discussion to require citations within the ledes of articles. There will be a time, perhaps soon, when a lot of English language content will be translated into other languages, and when that happens, it will start with ledes, and English ledes will all be problematic for having no citations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Are highly visible articles with short leads (compare with green and blue) - have started expanding red, but some consensus would be good on talk page. folks are welcome to take a look and opine. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I have long given more attention to intros than to sections, for reasons already discussed. And wow, some articles look like nobody is paying attention to such considerations. Social science topics are the ones where I've noticed it most, often starting off with a bucketful of poorly organized and abstruse academic jargon. Jim.henderson ( talk) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Another editor and I have been discussing the practice of using alternate names for pharmaceuticals in the ledes of their articles. We both agreed that we didn't feel sufficiently confident about policy to claim that one of us was "right" and the other "wrong", but we did agree that the subject might benefit from some wider input, and created a section on WT:MED ("Drug names, esp. for generics", topic 49) to get said input. As this group here (the LIT) appears to be specialized in the business of lede sections (!) I wanted to mention the discussion and invite anyone who reads this to check out the discussion there and drop a few cents in. Our discussion has been extremely cordial, and I think we both just want to have our peers take a quick look at our thought processes and share their own thoughts— and either way the discussion goes, in the end, will be fine with either of us! As long as it "goes"! Anyhow, come check us out if you get a moment. We'd appreciate some words from the Lede Section Mafia (as it were). Thank you! KDS4444 Talk 05:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It would be very helpful if we stopped promoting the term "lede". There have been multiple lengthy discussions about this at WT:LEAD, a page that carefully notes that treating WP leads like journalistic ledes is a mistake. The spelling is an Americanism anyway, and a specifically American journalism neologism. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Has this been studied? One could determine if it was true by videotaping peoples use of Wikipedia. Have not see this published though.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
New contest...will run in January. See Wikipedia:Take the lead! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Would any members of this project be interested in talking about your work for the Signpost? I'd like to hear some personal reflections and what you think are the most pressing concerns facing the project. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 16:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
On the page George Michael, an editor added to the last paragraph the information concerning his death. I separated that into its own paragraph. Another editor reverted it. That's cool, but I'm wondering if there is any policy or guideline on how information in the lead should be presented when it comes to paragraphs. It doesn't look like it, so I thought I'd ask your team about it. StarHOG ( talk) 16:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly.Of course Michael's death is the fact about him uppermost in our minds now, but we have to think how the article will look to readers in ten years' time. His death is well covered in the article body, and doesn't need expansion in the lead: so I think the lead is best left as it is. Hope this helps : Noyster (talk), 20:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that search engines show a snippet of a Wikipedia page, with link to the article. Geoflow for Android, does that, too and I imagine the practice is pretty common. Anybody know whether they all pick the same, or whether it's always the intro and only the intro? Jim.henderson ( talk) 19:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Could someone please improve the HCA lede? It fails to summarize the body of the text. There should be a mention of the very lengthy section of the "fraud investigations". Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 23:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)