Association of Structurist Wikipedians

This fractal represents the vast potential that can be realized with cogent structure.

While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not static—it is a wiki, constantly changing.

We should therefore write not only with present readers in mind, but with future editors; greater structure helps on both counts. For example, section headings make it easier to find information in an article, and easier for other editors to add information without sacrificing the article's flow.

While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is displayed on screens, not paper. Screens have their own readability constraints.

Our motto: Making space for data.

Tenets

• We support well-enumerated structure at every level of Wikimedia.
• Information that's useless when isolated (or when "thrown into a pile" of undifferentiated information) can become illuminating when made part of a logical structure.
• However, we discourage merging of articles with "non-redundant" content. Combining too much information in a single article discourages users from forging ahead with more detail and new ways of looking at the topic at hand.
• We support short sections, paragraphs, and sentences for the reasons listed in the previous item, and also because the web imposes its own reading constraints. [1]
• We frown upon excessive deletion. Nascent stubs or sentences may contain ideas that through grooming and structuring have the potential to grow into cogent, informative articles.

A Third Way

Structurism is like Mergism in that it exists outside the inclusionism/deletionism debate, or tries to provide a solution to that debate. However, Structurism is also broadly opposed to Mergism because merged articles can be wearyingly long and provide little breathing room for future expansion.

Structurism in Practice

Link to edits (yours or someone else's) that have improved the structure of an article (or of wikipedia as a whole).

• Aviation history
• $100 laptop
• Clock tower
• Early Congolese History
• Congo Free State

Useful tools

• CategoryTree
• CatLadder

Members

If you want to join the structurists, add your name:

• Tlogmer 22:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• I join on the terms that no formal leadership is ever elected. Al-Kadafi 05:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• If "Structurist" implies that one enjoys "sectionizing" articles, then I'm in. Sjschen 23:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I live to divide articles into meaningful chunks. It's really easy to spot the not-so-meaningful stuff that way. User:Evil Twin Skippy 03:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• I particularly like Jakob Nielsen's Writing for the Web, already linked to in the tenets. People do not read Wikipedia as much as they scan it. Structure can accommodate this while creating quality and trust. --Slac 23:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• 4.252.29.244 18:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I was looking for some people with such ideas. A long time ago I realized that I am often tired by trying to get just the quick info or some particular detail information in macropedic articles in en:. (I suppose macropedic articles should always have a 3 tiered structure of information depth. 1-The definition. 2-Overview PARAGRAPH with short abstract of all/most important information. 3-more structured text.) And I also like all the others tenets, particulary the third one (disc. merging). Reo On 14:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Utcursch 11:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Salt Yeung 17:41, 10 June 2006

• Draxle 09:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds great (I love organization), but the Association of (a) Wikipedia Sectionalist(s) proposal on the talk page seems a bit extreme : ) jc37 05:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's good to know that other Wikipeians support proper organization of articles--Whytecypress 13:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is probably the best Wikassociation there is. Continental Op 06:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Epolk 22:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Organizing is fun. Gotta love the equals sign. = Peregrinefisher 04:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wikifying articles for organizational purposes as well as proper grammar, citation, and spelling. Mkdw 01:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Dylan Lake 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Information Center 07:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endless blue Glad to join. I definitely agree that Wikipedia should be "object oriented". Endless blue 16:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• w: Eliyahu S I like that people have left spaces around their entries in this list. The introduction of spaces to separate words was a great leap forward in readability, and we should not lose momentum over the millenia. Eliyahu S 08:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• This works for me. --*Kat* 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)--*Kat*

• I am happy to contribute. younilha 21:59, 20 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

• Structure makes a good article even better and easier to read, understand, and gain more information about. Captain panda 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Xastic 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Promotion and User box

Use this template to promote and show your affiliation with this association:

Add {{User structurist}} to your user page to create this box:

This user is a member of the Association of Structurist Wikipedians.

Put it your Babel user box like so: {{babel-2|en|structurist}}

See also

• factionalism