Template talk:Introductory article

message: I think it would be better to say "the full encyclopaedia article" rather than "the proper encyclopaedia article". The introductory article is surely entirely proper! It should be just as accurate, well written (perhaps more so) and reliable as the main article. Any objections to changing the text of the template? Snalwibma 08:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just came here to say the same thing when viewing this template on the Introduction to evolution article.  I was going to suggest "more detailed" instead of "full", since depending on the topic one article may not contain the "full" explanation.  Perhaps "main" would work as well.  Thoughts? --*Spark* 18:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think main will be best. Loom91 09:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have gone ahead and made that change. Snalwibma 22:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change to text

message: Is there a way to place articles that use this template into the introductions category by topic (automatically categorise Introduction to quantum mechanics as Quantum mechanics, Introduction to)? —Dylan Lake 02:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Articles should now be sorted automatically based on the name of their parent article. ornis (t) 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation 

message: Is it possible to have a similar template to put on the main article, directing people to the introductory article, and similarly have it populate a category of "Articles that have an introductory article"? Carcharoth 00:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a template already exists and should be used for all cases where this template is used: . Loom91 10:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added that to the documentation. Please also see :Category:Introductions, for the latest additions which I found using this link. I'm uncertain about Background and genesis of topos theory - please remove that if you think it is inappropriate. Carcharoth 12:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'seeintro' template lacks documentation. Someone should fix that when they have time. Carcharoth 12:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse template? 

message: It is strange that such a category of article could emerge without any apparent provision for them in policy.  At the very least, we need a Wikipedia:Introductory articles policy/project page.  Thanks.--Pharos 06:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The provision already exists in Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, and I don't see any need for a detailed policy at this moment. What would it say? Loom91 08:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a general guideline for making articles accessible; it does not mention this special category of "introductory articles" (we appear to have just 7 at present) that are not accounted for at all in policy and would technically be AFD-worthy if consensus hadn't already established that some are already FA quality.  So, we need a guideline on what sort of topics deserve an ""introductory article", how much they should be simplified, and the specific ways in which their simplification differs from the attempt at reaching a broad audience in the writing of ordinary articles.--Pharos 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That guideline contains the following line in the lead: "Depending on the topic and the amount of interest in it, it may be appropriate to write a separate 'trampoline' article". Loom91 13:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being systematic about this 

message: There was recently a dispute concerning what generally accessible means. To me, it obviously means an audience of laymen who may know only the rudiments of the subject matter. However, some mathematicians, perhaps because of their academic background, seemed to think that professional mathematicians may also qualify as a general audience. Unless there is opposition, I'll change the wording of the template to reflect that it is meant to be used only on articles that are truly acessible. Loom91 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is great resistance to "Introduction to..." articles from those who are concerned they may constitute content forking. My line of argument (laid out e.g. in WP:Many things to many people) is that they are spin-off articles of the lead, permissible as well as necessary if the article is unavoidably technical, but nevertheless of sufficient interest to sufficiently many people so that the lead (which should always be generally accessible) is not enough. And I agree with you that accessible, in reference to "Introduction to..." articles, should mean accessible to the curious average person. Introduction to systolic geometry could, I think, readily be integrated into Systolic geometry. They're both not overly long, and they're both comparatively technical. Markus Poessel (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_29#Systolic_geometry_for_a_beginner showing a wide consensus in favor of such an introductory article.  It is not technical and far more accessible than the main article at systolic geometry.  Katzmik (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not enough to be more accessible than the main article, the article must be accessible to an audience who have no technical knowledge of the subject matter. Loom91 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. To me, "generally accessible" means anyone with a school-level education (school to 18 years) can read it. Not a good metric to use in practice, but avoiding advanced mathematics is one thing I would agree with. Explaining things is always better than using advanced terminology, jargon and equations. Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm changing the statement of the template then. Loom91 (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just deleted the addition of "for a general, layman audience", because (a) we have readers, not an audience; (b) let's not tell readers who should (and by implication who should not) be reading an article. Introductory articles are intended as general, accessible and non-technical introductions. Whether the reader is a general or a colonel, or a clergyman or a laywoman, or a postdoctoral mathematician, is not our business. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does generally accessible mean? 

message: Is there any way to use the template without including the article in the category? For example, Disaster should not be in :Category:Introductions. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note without categorisation 

message: The text says, This article is intended as an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject. For the main encyclopedia article, see ....  That's an amazingly complicated way to say, this is simple.  Any objections if I change this to, This is a non-technical introduction. For more details, see ...? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So now I see why the template reads This is an accessible..., a claim that, without intended as, is pure POV. As the function of introductions is to be accessible, I shall remove it. Rothorpe (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eschew excessive verbosity 

message: :Category:Introductory articles currently only has 1 article listed. Is there something wrong with the template  ? It's transcluded to all the places it should be... Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Introductory article. Quiddity (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category not getting populated