I join on the terms that no formal leadership is ever elected. Al-Kadafi05:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
If "Structurist" implies that one enjoys "sectionizing" articles, then I'm in. Sjschen23:11, 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 Skippy03:30, 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. --Slac23:36, 12 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)
No Knowledge without structure|Kein Wissen ohne Form --Der Rabe 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think users should be able to surf the categories hierarchy indefinitely; and having found an article to read, go directly to the sections that interest them. A good structure permits the knowing of many things! Bards 18:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
CredoFromStart 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC) The accessibility of the content is paramount in both function and form
Oh yes, most definitely! So much more rational than the Inclusionist/Deletionist twiffle. I'm also a Categorist, for similar reasons. Rubywine 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Your tenets are my tenets, glad to have found like minds - Diarmada 05:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Glad not to be part of the Inclusionist/ Deletionist debate Yamaka122 16:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Sarnalios 01:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Erebedhel I strongly believe that structurism is the way to go.
Everyone could use a little extra structure. If not, why not? Piano non troppo 08:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
WeijiBaikeBianji 03:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I especially like the idea of considering both human readability, especially for second-language readers, and machine readability. A good set of tenets for effective editing.
RubenSchade (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I honestly believe the best thing we can do to ensure long term viability of Wikipedia is to structure pages well. This includes using appropriate and valid templates, metadata, web standards and markup. In my opinion, more than any other policy, it has implications for accessibility, maintainability and future growth. I'm glad to be a part of this like-minded group, thank you for having me :).
JHunterJ (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC) , focusing on the navigational structure.