Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 9

message: Am I the only person that feels that the lede of this article has expanded beyond all reasonable limits? I've not read through the whole article (which itself seems to have become somewhat larger since the review last august), but the size of the lede seems quite outrageous to me for a featured article. Crimsone 19:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Crimsone, I agree, it seems the lede (lead?) has grown explosively as has the article. I looked on the history page and there has been a blizzard of edits recently, a whole page of history log, with no notes, comments, or proposals etc. on this page to float ideas and reach some sense of consistent approach. Maybe it is the article, I don't know, but those who deliberate here seem likely to get buried by a landslide of "unfloated" edits. Some are good, some are too esoteric, most seem, to me, to be "outrageous" as you say, creating an anarchic cacaphony (that's caca and phony put together you know). I almost wish for a dictator here. If we're lucky, a benificent despot. Alas. But at points, things also clear up. I don't know, but presently I agree about the rampant drift.Bearpa 01:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, that last paragraph in the lead is way too wordy.  Infact, that whole paragraph is better off integrated with the article.  James Duggan 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:LEDE]]

message: Why was this article tagged?  It's a feature article for crying out loud.  --James Duggan 03:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an OTRS tag; probably someone emailed the Wikimedia Foundation directly to tell them about their thoughts regarding the article. I can see their point; for example, "The diagnosis of AS is complicated by the lack of adoption of a standardized diagnostic screen ..." appears both in the lead and in the "Diagnosis" section. It is clear that some of the lead sentences were copied verbatim from other parts of the article. Fixing this will probably be tricky because the article is so heavily referenced. Graham87 04:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tag; this is an unusual use for OTRS tags - they're normally for articles which require major cleanup or where a living person has complained about defamatory content in their article. I doubt that anyone will sue the Wikimedia Foundation over the issue of repeated text in an article, so I think the explanation on the talk page will suffice. Graham87 04:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I referred to this discussion yesterday in the topic above, which I would be interested in y'all reading. It really illustrates my view of the different needs competing for page space and the subtext behind those needs. The sentence you've exampled, for instance, I myself would have agreed needed to be removed as redundant, but now I see a greater goal compromised: that of making the Lead a summary style article appropriate for stand-alone entry (as in the above note from WP:Summary style). You see, that sentence is actually a very important summary statement, one that a whole section or more could address. The dilemma is really the process of getting from long, multi-subject article to a layered, multi-tiered one without a confusion of concerns based on different editors not persuing the same (layered, multi-tiered) goal. And I think that goal is the way to go; pullup the guidelines pages I link above (there are others too) and see if that sounds reasonable. I hope we can help this whole thing along by doing this. Bearpa 23:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up tag