Wikipedia talk:One-sentence paragraphs
What about for stubs?
Where you're basically laying out an outline that needs to be filled in. ~ender 2003-04-27 19:50 MST
- When it gets filled in is the time to introduce paragraph breaks. Leaving marooned sentences is a lazy way to write a stub, it's fairly easy to write a stub that reads as a complete article even if it's 3 sentences. When more material is added contributors can easily introduce paragraphs as needed. Wikipedia articles can (and should) be more or less standalone and properly formatted even if short and incomplete at any stage of development. --Lexor|Talk 00:05, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why waste a reader's time by saying something in 80 or more words when the same information can be condensed to a dozen or 20 words? Maybe the real lazy writing is using too many words or too many sentences in a paragraph instead of taking the time to remove unneeded phrases and keeping thoughts short to allow the reader to better comprehend concepts and facts. Davodd 11:54, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm all for condensing removing unneeded phrases etc. The guideline isn't about succintness of individual sentences, it's about groups of sentences. There are some articles or article sections which are mostly collections of single sentences without any coherent structure, which is the point of paragraphs. Here is version of a page which has too many one-sentence paras and need consolidation, and here's my edit. Avoid this kind of situation is the purpose of the guideline. -Lexor|Talk 14:47, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This style guideline is based on personal taste and opinion with little-to-no factual research backing it up.
In remembering that Wikipedia is not paper, we should also remember that writing rules for printed pages do not always apply to the Internet.
I suggest editors follow their gut instincts and encourage one-sentance paragraphs where they seem appropriate. Davodd 11:54, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Sure, there are times when it's appropriate, no argument there, but it's good to refactor articles that overdo the single sentences. Wikipedia isn't paper, but that's more in terms of there being no limit on the number of different articles not on the basic rules of laying out paragraphs, also keep in mind a paper version is a possibility. --Lexor|Talk 14:47, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I find the first paragraph (avoid 1-sentence paras!!) obnoxious and probably contoversial. I find the second (don't rely on 1-sentence paras so much, tips to avoid) a lot less dictatorial. Why not snip the first paragraph? --Twinxor 19:46, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles
At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 19:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)