Proposal talk:Article Short-Summaries

From Strategic Planning

Note that there are some JavaScript options to accomplish this that have been around for a while. My own feeling is that most readers would find it annoying (I know I did when I tried it out), but making such a feature more easily accessible (through preferences) would be good.--ragesoss 04:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:LEAD#First_sentence suggests that the first paragraph of the article should usually stand alone as a summary for the purposes described in this proposal. (I can think of some math articles which try to stuff <math> into that first paragraph, to mixed results.) Can be used for this? 21:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Great idea, but as noted, its already been done! There are already summaries in the lead, (most of the time) and a really neat tool called pop-ups lets you view them. Go here: Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups for instructions on how to install. A open question is still whether such tools should be default. I don't think they should, as they can be confusing at first. Perhaps making them available to IP users would be a good idea. (currently they are only available to registered users) Danski14 03:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I thought of, too! Can we strip down popups to just the preview? HereToHelp 22:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that we already have a pretty good solution in pop-ups (which I use), as such I'm not much interested in seeing this proposal garner effort in the strategy review. --Bodnotbod 18:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I never use any of the button on pop-ups. I'd like to see a version for the reader, who wants to preview an article without seeing recent revisions and reverting them. HereToHelp 16:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scientific style abstracts?

When the article becomes longer than four pages or about (and there are many such articles already) it may be useful to accept/require a short abstract of the article, same as near every scientific article has (see [1] as example, when abstract is printed in bold in the beginning of the text). The size of the abstract must be forcibly limited by software to some amount that is very easy to read quickly, 512 characters or about (different journals have this limit different). If limiting to 256 characters or something like that, it becomes possible to include abstract in search results. Audriusa 11:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 --Goldzahn 11:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is supposed to be the introduction - thus we should improve the introductions and not develop new features. --Hannes Röst 12:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still, they could have some support on Wiki language level that may make they formatting and some kinds of usage easier. Audriusa 21:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I disagree with the proposed merger to Littlepedia, I see this as totally different. WereSpielChequers 19:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]