Editing Incubator escapee wiki:Writing better articles/Establish context (section)

==Establish context==
''Originally at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive1]]''

Some things that might need to be in here:
* Create context: many articles assume that the reader already knows the field in which the term is used; this is especially true for articles regarding computer science and mathematics. These should included some reference in their introduction sentence to the field, such as "In [[mathematics]] ..." or "In the field of [[computer science]], ..."
* Links can be used to explain a term, but not for acronyms or abbreviations the reader cannot be expected to know. So "[[Central Processing Unit]] (CPU)" on first occurrence.
[[User:Jheijmans|Jeronimo]]

I agree with both.
Especially the first, which I broke too often in my youth.
On that subject, note that we can say something more specific than "In [[mathematics]]" (if the subject is truly thus restricted), such as "In [[topology]]".
We can even say "In [[homotopy theory]]", even though most people have no idea what the heck homotopy theory is, because they can click on the link to find out.
But we still need <em>some</em> context.
&mdash; [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby]] 13:04 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

: In that case, I'd prefer something along the lines of "In the [[mathematics|mathematical]] field of [[topology]],...". In that case, both mathematicians (but not topologists) and complete layman can get an idea what the topic is about.

::Well, I do have a lot of articles that say "In [[topology]] and related branches of [[mathematics]]", since the basic ideas of topology are widely used in other branches. But how does it work for homotopy theory? "In the [[mathematics|mathematical]] field of [[topology]]'s subdiscipline of [[homotopy theory]]"? We could say "In the [[mathematics|mathematical]] field of [[homotopy theory]]", since mathematicians know that homotopy theory is topology and nonmathematicians only ''want'' to know that it's math.

::OTOH, consider "In the [[mathematics|mathematical]] theory of [[building (mathematics)|building]]s". Had I read that last year, I'd have had no ideas what buildings are in math; they're not so well known. I ''would'' have understood "In the [[group theory|group theoretic]] theory of [[building (mathematics)|building]]s", but then the nonmathematicians would be lost. So we would only have complete context given for everybody by saying the loquacious "In the [[mathematics|mathematical]] theory of [[building (mathematics)|building]]s, used in [[group theory]]".

::Anyway, the point of this note is to say that giving complete context will sometimes be quite wordy. But I do agree that we should give as much context as concise sentence structure allows. So basically I agree with you. &mdash; [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby]] 13:40 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

: BTW, I thought topology had something to do with geography? [[User:Jheijmans|Jeronimo]]

::I thought that this was the same as [[topography]], but the OED disagrees. Now who wants to go through 93 links to [[Topology]] and disambiguate them? &mdash; [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby]] 13:40 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

:::At first sight, they're all right (just did a checking of the page titles, and looked at those I was least sure of) [[User:Andre Engels|Andre Engels]] 13:46 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

:: Just stepping in to point the way to the policy page [[Wikipedia:Establish context]] -- maybe add all these ideas there & move this talk to its talk page? -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]]

: I'd say do it the other way round. This page collects all kind of style guidelines, so we should include it here. That way it is easier to get an overview for new - and old (I still find new Wikipedia guideline pages) - users. [[User:Jheijmans|Jeronimo]]

:: My idea was that this page will need splitting at some point anyway. If guidelines on this page already have pages elsewhere, we might as well use the other pages & link to it from here. -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]]

:::I agree with [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] on this one.  When I did the first draft of MOS, I assumed there would be separate pages on layout and on scientific articles and suggested separate pages on hairy subjects like tables.  There's a list of other pages at the bottom (the only thing left of the "old" MOS).  I think we should keep the MOS simple and unimposing and put the philosophy and special cases on links.  [[User:Ortolan88|Ortolan88]]

:: Hmmmmm. One of the problems I have with this is that, as so often happens, the two articles start to live separate lives. However, at the least, these style guidelines should be ''mentioned'', a link will explain the specifics and the ideas behind it. [[User:Jheijmans|Jeronimo]]

:: I agree with Ortolan88. This should be like [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]] in that regard. &mdash; [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby]] 09:03 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

: Yes, that's probably the best. We should take care however that both pages state the same, and link to each other. [[User:Jheijmans|Jeronimo]]

:They seem to be keeping things together with the naming conventions page, but it probably helps that the subsidiary pages' names have the format <nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (...)]]</nowiki>. Should we do similarly here? That is, if we adopt a previously existing style page as a subsidiary page to the MoS, then should we rename it <nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (...)]]</nowiki>? &mdash; [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby]] 01:43 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)

::Sounds reasonable to me.  We could do the same thing with the talk page and stash all that maundering about hectares and poods and versts and furlongs out of the way.  [[User:Ortolan88|Ortolan88]] 01:49 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)

: I was planning on moving dates, numbers and units onto a separate page once the [[orders of magnitude]] links are all ready; the relevant talk would be shunted across too -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 08:45 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)
----
Is it always wrong to begin an article with a brief quotation?  I have included a number of them, always italic'd and set off, before the main intro text, as an attempt to provide an immediate cultural reference and context.  A number of other respected Wikipedians say that it is wrong, wrong, wrong to include them, and cite this guideline as justification.

Admittedly, the articles I begun or added them to are probably not the most solemn articles.  Many of them come from the [[stock character]] pages, which have been a minor project of mine.  Here cultural references are particularly important and the subjects deal with popular entertainments.  I see the quotations myself as establishing immediate context by providing a point of reference; look at the history of [[mad scientist]] to see what I mean.

There are other articles, like [[Lizzie Borden]] and [[Old King Cole]], where the article's only real subject is a quotation (again, look at the histories); to begin the article with biographical boilerplate, or anything other than the popular rhymes which are the only reason these articles exist, strikes me as to begin with weak and mostly irrelevant material.  

If the sense of the community is that these introductory quotes are always wrong, I will move or remove them.   I'd just as soon hear from people other than those who have been taking them off, though, as to whether these things are really wrong or not.  -- [[User:Ihcoyc|IHCOYC]] 15:40, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

:I like those introductory quotes. It makes the articles lively. Good work! -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 20:21, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

:I've no objection to them. Lots of books have chapters beginning this way; while it's not a very encyclopedia-like practice, as long as they're pertinent to the subject or are explicitly about the subject (as is the one on [[Lizzie Borden]]), they're fine with me. Actually, it seems weirder to have them out in the middle of the text without any explanation (like the one on [[Mad scientist]]). -- [[User:Wapcaplet|Wapcaplet]] 23:42, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

''From the Village pump, 29 August 2003:''