Talk:Abstract impressionism

What is the reason for the definition when it is in the article itself? It is redundant and confusing. Abstract impressionism is a tendency in post-World War II American art era. If you have any information on this tendency please add to the article. (Marika Herskovic 15:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

No, the definition is not redundant and confusing when used in the manner for which it is primarily intended: Related Articles pages, which present an overview of a topic and related topics, in something of an index/outline form. Such a page is made up of links to the topics, and there is only room for a short definition. The definitions are put into R-templates for display.

It can be useful, in creating several related articles, to build up the structure on Related Articles pages, even before the articles exist. It is possible, for example, to simply have a placeholder for the article name, or a placeholder with definition but no full article.

There are formatting differences between the textual definition in the introduction of an article, and in the Definition page. In the introduction, the CZ convention is to include, bolded, the name of the article in the first sentence, and then add sentence and paragraphs refining the concept. On Definition pages, the definition text does not repeat the name of the article, because that would precede it in an R-template. Further, since Definitions will appear in line-by-line entries on Related Article pages and the like, they display improperly if they include multiple line formatting, such as blockquotes. Our general approach is to try to keep the Definition to 100 words or less.

There are also some advanced techniques for indexing, where a definition can point to only part of an article. Other, more administrative pages make use of definitions where it is useful to have the status of the article, the name of the article, and a brief definition. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)