User talk:AndreJustAndre/Sectionref

Wow!

Okay, Andrevan, first off, I don't understand coding and templates, but I'm impressed with your attempts here. If this can end up with a better way to apply the concepts at How to create and manage a good lead section, then go for it. I don't "own" these ideas, and I welcome any help from others. I want to see the lead/body connection improved. It's rather haphazard at present.

Secondly, I want to thank you very much for not attacking, denigrating, and berating me for the audacity of trying something new. That's the usual reaction I get. Biting newbies and oldies is common.

Thirdly, the connection between the lead and body needs to be enforced more strictly and incorporated in our PAG, not as a mere MOS preference.

I believe some of the ideas and premises in my essay are based on existing MOS/PAG and/or should be incorporated. The first are obvious, but progress to some "newer" ideas not obvious to everyone:

1. most content must be sourced with the exception of "The sky is blue"
2. lead content must be based on content in the body
3. it's nice to avoid refs in the lead
4. policy allows refs in the lead, and sometimes it's best to do it to avoid constant discussion and controversy. This creates clutter, so we need a system to avoid this.
5. NEW: a system of using lead "section refs" can get around the clutter of those refs in the lead
6. NEW: it's a good thing if readers can know exactly where in the body the expanded and sourced detailed content and references are located when they read something in the lead, because that connection must exist. I want that to happen easily with a single click on a small lead "section ref"
7. an article should follow a clear format described in our MOS
8. that format should describe the order in which sections are laid out
9. NEW: the lead should duplicate that format and order as the lead is a mini summary of the article
10. NEW: if a subject is significant enough to deserve a main section heading, then it deserves some form of mention in the lead, whether it's a single word, phrase, or sentence, all without going into too much detail in the lead
11. NEW: the more complicated, notable, and controversial a topic, the longer the article and the longer the lead, IOW some articles deserve a long lead, even up to six paragraphs

All of this is subject to discussion and interpretation. Even after all these years, I too am learning and willing to change my opinions and interpretations of PAG. They are constantly changing, and I don't fully understand all of them. I feel we need to deal with this in a forum where many editors and experts at coding, templates, etc. can participate. Where is a good place to do that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) are likely the next places to bring the proposal. It sounds good to me and constructive.Andre🚐 17:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Andre, would you mind if we, before trying the Village Pump, moved the discussion from Talk:Donald Trump to here? Then we can work out the bumps and THEN present a more appetizing proposal at the Village Pump. My experience at the Village Pump has often been outright rejection or personal attacks when suggesting changes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

We could also do it on my talk page if you would rather not do it here. Let me know. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, you can do whatever you want on these user pages and move them or change them as you wish. Probably though when we firm up the proposal we'll need to solicit comments from the Village Pump or another centralized place of discussion. Andre🚐 18:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I think I'll host this on the essay's talk page so this one is reserved for development. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Arrow

That arrow is the least obtrusive symbol and literally shows its purpose. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)