Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lead Improvement Team/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Name

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 personally feel it's fine as is, but I am open to changing it if that's the consensus. We can always change it later when there are more editors here who can give feedback.  DiscantX 00:20, 19 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 discussion there. You'd need to be specific. It's not too long for the size of the article and importance of the subject, so what is your complaint? You need to be specific, like in exactly which words and phrases. Insulting other editors and edit warring there won't do any good. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of interest: "blue" article

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)

Signpost plug

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:

  1. Read this guidance about how the lede is normally written
  2. Put yourself down as a participant on the WikiProject
  3. Pick any article from the Open task lists there and off you go!

: Noyster (talk), 13:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

How do we do that? Tetra quark (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 Done [2]: Noyster (talk), 13:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rcsprinter, I don't wish to add anything further, though DiscantX as project founder may like to do so: Noyster (talk), 16:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Noyster, Rcsprinter123, looks good to me. I think what's there is probably enough to pique people's interest.  DiscantX 01:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Lead section cleanup already exists

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?  DiscantX 00:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tetra quark: Tagging you so you see this.  DiscantX 06:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@DiscantX: I'm not sure. Perhaps we could simply reactivate that project. There already are quite a few members there etc. Anyway, I'm going to work on a banner template for this one Tetra quark (don't be shy) 19:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Tetra quark, sounds good. I already got started on a couple templates. Feel free to make any changes you want.  DiscantX 01:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I will improve it tomorrow. Not I've got no time Tetra quark (don't be shy) 01:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No need to worry about the former cleanup project as it's been marked defunct, rather than just inactive. This one has a better title, though I would prefer to use the more usual spelling "Lead" and miss off the "team", so: "WikiProject Lead improvement". How to publicise this so it attracts plenty of active members? Could start with the Village pump and the Signpost, hopefully others will suggest more avenues. Good luck: Noyster (talk), 14:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Lead vs. Lede – I'm open to it being "Lead" rather than "Lede" if that's what people want. I had a feeling the issue would come up; it seems to be the version Wikipedia has chosen elsewhere so I suppose it would make sense here. My personal feeling is that "lede" is better though because it is less confusing; lede only has one specific meaning and that is the introduction of an article or news story that contains the most important information for the reader to know.[1] Lead (in my opinion) is more general; it connotes some portion of the article that comes before the rest. There was also the issue that lead has another meaning, and in the context of the WikiProject title, "Lead Improvement Team" might initially sound to some like we were somehow in charge (leaders) of something that we weren't. Not as big of an issue if we drop team from the name though.  DiscantX 08:09, 20 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.  DiscantX 08:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)- 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)

This should be a straightforward merge if everyone agrees, otherwise one can be requested. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]

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)

Excerpts from the lede

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)

Ledes of medical articles

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)

@Bluerasberry: Could you link us to where the task force members have made their recommendations about citing leads? I've looked around but am not seeing anything. While I take the point about a short free-standing version of an article needing citations, there are big questions about how one would go about selecting from sometimes several hundred citations, all of which help to support some part of the body text being summarised. The thread just above reminds us that the lead or the first part of it is often detached, not only for translation purposes but by a range of tools for searching and summarising, and these would have to handle citations if present: Noyster (talk), 21:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Noyster Hmm... well, the ledes / abridged articles are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/RTT(Simplified). CFCF, is there some manual of style for how these shortened articles are supposed to be made? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Red....Yellow...Orange (colour)...Violet (color) etc...

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)

Geopolitics

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)

Ledes of pharmaceutical articles— use of alternate names

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! KDS4444Talk 05:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"Lede"

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)

I am with you. "Lede" has always rubbed me the wrong way, and I have just done my best to get used to it. KDS4444Talk 06:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Evidence that the lead is the most read

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)

The lead of red is read more than the lede of lead, and how many are led to read the Leeds of LED, ReD or red lead?: Noyster (talk), 16:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
A better answer to Doc James is here. As pointed out by Tbayer, it shows that ... more often than not, readers on mobile phones only read the lead section, without looking at further sections.: Noyster (talk), 21:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually I have seen it published, it was in the "Signpost" this very week 92.11.1.14 (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Doc James, actually that's a good question. It's a reasonable assertion that it would be, but it would probably be prudent to find some sources on this. I'm going to try and find some references. My instinct tells me it's true, but it's possible there hasn't been much research on it. There are definitely options as far as tracking user engagement goes, such as tracking mouse movements to form a heat map, but that would need to be opt-in (and would also be original research – though research by Wikipedians about the use of Wikipedia isn't necessarily wrong).  DiscantX 10:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
All research starts as original research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Maybe I'll try drag up enough to write an essay on it.  DiscantX 11:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Take the lead!

New contest...will run in January. See Wikipedia:Take the lead! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Right. Get the lead out (short for "Get the lead out of your pants," a slang expression meaning "Hurry up!" And pronounced "led.") Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Report for Signpost

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)

Lead section paragraphs

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)

Not much of a "team" here StarHOG, but I'm not aware of any specific guidance on paragraphing in the lead, except there should normally be no more than four of them (there are three in that article's lead now). If we turn to WP:Writing better articles#Paragraphs it says 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)
It absolutely helps. Thanks. BTW, article leads/intros are a big deal to me and I've spent many hours trying to unify the leads for Star Trek characters and Star Trek films (Star Trek is kind of a big deal for me, too). StarHOG (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

What will Google say?

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)

Hospital Corporation of America

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)

Resolved
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lead_Improvement_Team/Archive_1&oldid=1249034578"