Category talk:Introductions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Underlying philosophy of introductory articles

It would be best to have something here explaining in more detail the underlying philosophy of introductory articles. Does anyone want to explain? Carcharoth 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, they violate WP:CFORK. We have sister projects for that. Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and not least simple:. I find "introduction" articles in Wikipedia article namespace highly questionable, and while their intent is no doubt honorable, I don't think they can be reconciled with Wikipedia core policy. --dab (𒁳) 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are undesirable aspects to these articles, but there are also undesirable aspects to not having them. In any case the reference to "core policy" is overblown -- note first of all that WP:CFORK is a guideline, not policy, and as such is "not set in stone" yada yada yada, and secondly that guideline is mainly aimed at POV forks, which these introductory articles are not.

I'm fairly conflicted about these articles, but let's keep the discussion on a pragmatic level rather than dragging in "core policies", which as far as I can tell are not much involved. --Trovatore (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

These articles help our readers, and to me that's reason enough for them to exist. In any case, WP:CFORK covers POV forks. The way you are interpreting it, daughter articles could also be considered forks. As someone has argued before, introductory articles may be considered as the daughter article of the lead. Loom91 (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Being discussed at some length at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination). WLU (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)