This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
Should the manual of style require citations in the lead for contested statements about BLPs? The current text is generally considered to contradict itself on this point; see discussions here for details and general implications about what this would mean for the text. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Long-standing consensus at this article has it that the cost of citations in the lead (visual clutter) would exceed their benefit.DYK, ITN, GAN, FAC and most projects have held that every non-trivial statement is contested, so this would require the lead to be fully referenced like the article. In a massive article where each sentence summarizes a section of the body, that sentence will acquire all the references of the body. WP:V is satisfied by a fully referenced body. The presence or absence of citations in the lead will not alter whether or not a statement is contentious, and the issue usually revolves around whether a statement is WP:UNDUE, which is magnified by the lead being a summary, and the presence or citations will not alter that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
he was accused of sexual misconduct on several occasions[1][2][3][4][5], but denied accusations[6][7][8][9][10] ascribing them to smear campaign by his opponents.[11][12]Thanks but no thanks; proper summarizing works just fine by the existing means of consensus and dispute resoluton. No such user ( talk) 19:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
|rfcid=
from another RfC, as you did
here. Always let
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) assign its own - the rfcid is used as a key to a table of all RfCs, both ongoing and current, so must be unique; and it's also used as a link anchor, so following the link in
this RfC listing will jump to the other RfC, not to this one.Currently the guidance for length states, "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs." I propose cutting some words, because the whole lead guidance and the Manual of Style are guidelines, therefore it may be redundant stating again "as a general guideline, not an absolute rule" while subsequently the text also states "usually". I can see the intention is emphasis, but in my opinion there is too much emphasis and redundancy in the mentioned text. I propose as a copyedit leaving from the sentence just "the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs". Thinker78 (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok, if the extra words that seem repetitive are there to provide emphasis, is there another way to highlight said purpose, without repeating what in general applies to all guidelines? Or you prefer to stay as it is for the time being and if so why (per consensus?) Thinker78 (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Why is the SD template supposed to go above the (disambiguation) hatnotes ( WP:SDPLACE)? I did a search of the history of this talk page, but I can't seem to find the rationale. It doesn't seem logical to me that the short description of the content to go above the part that clarifies other content. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Spelunking in article history brought up this, i.e. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 13#Where to put {{short description}} (broken section link because a transclusion happens otherwise, d'oh, I suppose it has to be escaped somehow). -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
To use the prasing from WP:SHORTDESC, it applies ot the 'scope of the page', yet hatnotes are about what is outside the current scope of the page, which makes reading lead section sources with both shortdescs and hatnotes counterintuitive to me. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Anyone who looks at an article containing a hatnote using the Wikipedia App will see the short description rendered before any other content, and well before any hatnotes. It's obvious that a reader who spots a typo or other error in a short description and tries to correct it will expect to find the short description before any other text on the edit page. These are the folks we want to convert to editors and it's crazy to confuse them by trying to prescribe having items in the wikitext in a different order from the order in which many readers will see them. What is the argument for putting hatnotes in the wikitext above short descriptions? Whatever it is, it surely pales into insignificance when judged against the common sense of having items editable in the same order as they are viewed.
I've done this in articles with long leads, so that the main points are presented up front where the drive-by reader will see them. Sometimes a lead may only have 3-4 paragraphs, but they're rather long and technical, and could lose the casual reader. However, I don't see anything in the MOS that states this explicitly; I've inferred it from best practice in writing a section of an article. Should we say something explicit, or is the need for a summary para in the lead an indication that the lead as a whole needs to be reduced?
The article that made me think to look here was fetal heartbeat bill. Most news sources have decided to avoid that phrase because it's intentionally inaccurate. That IMO is a basic piece of info that belongs in the first paragraph, to explain why there are competing terms. Another editor argued that we're not allowed to duplicate information in the lead, and so they merged the entire medical para, which had been at the bottom of the lead, into the introductory paragraph. That, IMO, makes the intro rather opaque and the article less accessible.
Do we need to avoid repeating info in the lead, or can it be good practice to create an intro paragraph that presents key points of the lead, which in turn presents in more detail the key points of the article? — kwami ( talk) 19:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia leads are not written in news style.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion over at WP:SHIPS over how the project handles some disambiguators and whether the project’s practice should be brought in line with the guidance at MOS:FIRST or it should be an exception. Comments are invited here. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 10:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I worked on the table that appears on MOS:LEADLENGTH, expanding it to provide editors more information based on their diverse needs. To some, article length in characters would suffice, but others like me would like more units of measurement. Therefore I present the modifications I made to seek consensus and maybe replacing the current table already in the guideline. I didn't modify the original units, I only did some copyediting and added the other units of measurement columns.
Article length in characters | Article length in words [a] | Article length in kb [b] | Lead length, in paragraphs |
---|---|---|---|
Fewer than 15,000 | Fewer than 2,500 | Fewer than 15 | One or two |
15,000–30,000 | 2,500–5,000 | 15–30 | Two or three |
More than 30,000 | More than 5,000 | More than 30 | Three or four |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Notes
I present an example for consideration in several proposals on this page.
In general, I always support emphasizing words of readable prose over KB, along with clarification about how readable prose size is measured. But this table has led to misapplication of the overarching principles of WP:LEAD-- "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." If a (relatively) short but comprehensive article does that best in a four-paragraph lead, we should not constrain the lead simply because an article is relatively short.
See:
FAC reviewers a) missed the error, b) minimized the key points of WP:LEAD, and c) focused instead on the relatively less important guidance about length. [1] [2] Rather than defending the superior lead, the nominator reduced the lead to an inferior one, simply because the article had only a couple thousand words of readable prose.
If a relatively short article is comprehensive, we should not be reducing a lead which otherwise meets the more important aspects of WP:LEAD simply based on (over application of) a length guideline. This article's lead was damaged at FAC, and I've seen that more than once.
While we often emphasize that a guideline is just a guideline, to be taken with a grain of salt, they are often applied to excess. Can the wording here be adjusted to account for this problem? I am not an effective wordsmith, so don't try myself, but this is a recurring problem at FAC. In fact, the two reviewers who requested a lead reduction ( Ergo Sum and The Rambling Man) had likely been subjected to same on other articles, as they tend to write shorter articles. @ Ovinus: per separate discussion about reviews at FAC of leads on my talk that I haven't yet found time to reply to ... this, and lack of adequate scrutiny of leads at FAC (leading to the error on this FAC), is a problem. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article.Maybe, sometimes. But I believe the L. D. Reynolds FA example above presents a counterexample, and I suggest a comprehensive short article may warrant a longer lead than this table suggests, based on the more important principles of a good lead. I don't know how to fix the wording to reflect this, but just dropping the table still leaves us with the same problem, because it's also in the wording. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Alternate idea: thinking aloud, more work needed.
I am in agreement with the gist of what both XOR'easter and WhatamIdoing present above, and yet some sort of semi-numerical guidance (tempered with all the disclaimers) is needed to address those situations (like Hanford Site) where apparently novice editors are chunking new text into the lead rather than the body. This is often a problem in underdeveloped leads (and Hanford Site is only listed as an FA because no one has sent it to WP:FAR yet-- it appears abandoned and outdated).
What comes to mind is to do something like what is done at WP:ELNO:
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article.
That is, WP:ELNO qualifies the statement to what the article should become when fully developed. This makes sense to me as a medical editor because it would be OK to have a fully developed lead that covers everything at WP:MEDORDER, even if that content isn't yet fully developed in the body; that is, the lead could be well written yet disproportionate length-wise to what is in the (as yet underdeveloped) body. The lead in a fully developed, comprehensive article should not be artificially constrained but on the other hand, neither should it be allowed to sprawl like Hanford Site. An underdeveloped article might have a correctly written longer lead when measured proportionally, as may a relatively short article.
What if we dropped the table and the para suggestions, and suggested (loose) percentage ranges of overall measurable prosesize in the lead instead? I've looked at the dense medical FAs I write, and others like J. K. Rowling, as well as several other FAs mentioned on this page, and although we might get a bot to look at a bigger sample of FAs, we might suggest instead that fully developed long FAs tend to have leads that are in the range of 5% of overall word count measured by readable prose, while shorter or underdeveloped articles are around 11% of their prosesize in the lead, with medium-sized articles somewhere in between. I realize this leaves us with just another artificial numerical measure, which XOR objects to, but it wouldn't artificially constrain paragraphs, and it could provide (if we had more data) broader ranges to play with, while accounting for the article's development via its assessment.
Samples:
Longer FAs
Shorter FAs
Medium-size listed as FA, but not at standard
GA sample presented by Ovinus
Just an idea to experiment with ... more data on a larger sample of FAs would be needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
novice editors are chunking new text into the lead rather than the body. Novice editors do that just because the lead is what they see first. The choice to excise those chunks or migrate them into the body (if they aren't redundant there) can be made with a conceptual judgment call without running "readable prose size" numbers. (Typical edit summary: "way too detailed for the intro, which is meant to be a concise overview" or "these details already present in the appropriate section below".) XOR'easter ( talk) 16:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I have been working on a proposal for a new lead size guidance taking as basis general writing principles, Wikipedia guidance, and the input of editors who are contributing in the thread. I created a page ( Draft:MOS:LEADLENGTH table modification) for community discussion while I work on it to hopefully achieve a consensus proposal that can be accepted for inclusion in the guideline. Everyone is welcome to discuss any issues about it in its talke page. -- Thinker78 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
it doesn't satisfy editors' needs or desires as other guidelinesAssuming this vague criticism to be true, what is the #1 deficiency in your opinion? Please be specific so I don't have to ask you to articulate the #1 problem you want to fix for a third time? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I have put some significant work on the lead guidance modification, even though I understand it may not be adopted. It would be great if some editors provide some feedback so far for the draft (extended content needs conciliation yet), but I clarify it is still a work in progress and that I also need to finish analyzing the discussion in this thread. Thinker78 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I have come up with an option [ Draft:MOS:LEADLENGTH table modification#New recommended lead length guideline]. Feedback anyone? WhatamIdoing, SandyGeorgia? -- Thinker78 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's a great example of how NOT to write a first sentence, from the Teutonic Order article:
The Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem (official names: Latin: Ordo domus Sanctae Mariae Theutonicorum Hierosolymitanorum; Italian: L'Ordine dei Fratelli della Casa Tedesca di Santa Maria a Gerusalemme; Spanish: Orden de Hermanos de la Casa Alemana de Santa María en Jerusalén; French: Ordre des Frères de la Maison allemande de Sainte Marie à Jérusalem; German: Orden der Brüder vom Deutschen Haus der Heiligen Maria in Jerusalem; Dutch: Orde van de Broeders van het Duitse Huis van Sint-Maria in Jeruzalem; Polish: Zakon Szpitala Najświętszej Marii Panny Domu Niemieckiego w Jerozolimie), commonly known as the Teutonic Order (German: Deutscher Orden, Deutschherrenorden or Deutschritterorden), is a Catholic religious order founded as a military order c. 1190 in Acre, Kingdom of Jerusalem. CUA 27 ( talk) 21:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable in the Alternative Names section for cases of transgender individuals where their deadname was known enough/notable to be included under WP:DEADNAME, that while including the deadname is still fine, but normal bolding from a redirect should be held back except in the most extreme cases? For example, the case I started from is Maddy Thorson, where her deadname is notable but not extensively, so while its still a search term and should be in the lede, doesn't need to be highlighted. The same would likely go for The Wachowskis, where their first names were likely not as household compared to "The Wackowskis", so there's no need to bold their original names. But on the other hand, both the original names for Elliot Page and Caitlyn Jenner are household, well beyond the DEADNAME minimum threshold, and thus bolding their original names make sense.
The idea is that for those where the deadname should be mentioned but which lack the wide-scale recognition, we don't need to be calling out that name by bolding it, just letting it sit as normal in the lede. Masem ( t) 03:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Please comment in the RfC about the first sentence in Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#RfC on boldfacing of scientific names in articles about organisms. The discussion should take place there, not here, in order to keep the discussion centralized. The result may affect MOS:BOLDSYN. — BarrelProof ( talk) 01:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion about modifying the text of the leadcite template in Template talk:Leadcite comment. Your input is welcomed. Thinker78 (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Zaloni doesn't have one and there's not really any text already there that I can work with. The source I was using to add to the article doesn't help for general information because it's mostly PR doublespeak. And most of the article isn't much better.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
This discussion on WP:BLPN might be of interest to some people here. Connormah ( talk) 15:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I invite editors who are more or less fluent in MOS to participate in this discussion on a relatively simple dispute. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 00:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. I just want to draw your attention to the Manual of Style readability of the first sentence. Specifically, I want to highlight the article about Mother Teresa in Wikipedia and in Britannica [3]. No idea what the manual of style of this latter source is. But I am thinking something is amiss in their page or to be more objective, it is not of my personal liking. Thinker78 (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia "Previews" are the text shown in a popup box when hovering over a link to another page. These popups always show the first paragraph of a page. This manual should make clear that the first paragraph has special priority within wikipedia and is the only info seen if one doesn't click through to a page. The void century ( talk) 18:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I've seen this spelling many times, probably from British editors. It helps distinguish from other meanings of the word "lead" so I use it even though I'm American.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there no guidance re the relationship of lead and infobox content ??? Both of them are to be summaries of the important items of the topic, but I was surprised nothing is said in either MOS:LEAD or MOS:IB about how they are to get along or a balance of their respective content.
The only guidance I saw in MOS:LEAD for infoboxes was a sidenote in the placement guidance MOS:LEADORDER : " Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article, "
This interest came up from a TALK in Pound sterling noting the article starts with detailing of ISO code, abbreviation, symbols, and compound noun forms. To me this seemed poor narrative of redundant restating the Template:Infobox currency which is immediately alongside the lead. And almost all of the List of circulating currencies seem to start with the same sort of lead. It doesn't seem to be from a guidance of MOS:CURRENCY, or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, or a TALK in archives...
More than just currencies though, I am surprised there is not something at a general level talking about lead and infobox content... have I missed something ?
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 14:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignoredHawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
If the first paragraph of an article ends with a colon intended to lead into a quotation template, and if that article has an infobox or image, then the mobile display will put the infobox or image above that quotation in a way that will make no sense when the article is read top to bottom (for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Duck_test&oldid=1105847402).
Should MOS:OPEN caution against doing this? It feels like it might be technically bad practice even outside of mobile use, as breaking the key information of a paragraph into two paragraphs, one of them a quotation, goes against MOS:OPEN's list of what "the first paragraph" should be doing. (I'd assume that the API and tools like Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups would consider the quotation to be a separate, second paragraph, rather than part of the first; it's clearly what Wikipedia's mobile code for where to put the infobox is doing.) Lord Belbury ( talk) 13:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that the lead should not contain significant information that is never mentioned in the text of an article? Skimming quickly through the MOS now I don't see any such admonition, but may have missed it.
National Abortion Federation is in the news today, with an important article in the Washington Post, and people will be searching there. I think what must have happened is that this had been simply a stub with no lead, until February 2021 when an editor added a new section about Canada, which converted the entire stub to what appears to be a lead. In any event, the entire article badly needs updating and rewriting. (Don't look at me — I know nothing about the subject; and after getting in trouble several times as a noob, I've long restricted myself to spelling and grammar, and adding links.) Milkunderwood ( talk) 02:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem with the National Abortion Federation article is still unaddressed, and trying to fix it is way above my pay grade. I'm convinced that it had been a stub with no lead, concerning the U.S. organization, and when an editor added a new section on its presence in Canada, it converted the entire stub to what is now a lead. This makes the article a nonsensical mess. Milkunderwood ( talk) 20:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
An RFC here, has been opened. In relation to article leads. GoodDay ( talk) 02:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Do the guidelines mean, or should they mean, that we only use a foreign translation if knowledge of that foreign translation is significantly helpful in understanding the English language article? That makes sense to me. What does not make sense, and which is the cause of this problem, is adding foreign translations in a language that has some connection with the subject of the article. See Pope John Paul II (Latin: Ioannes Paulus II; Italian: Giovanni Paolo II; Polish: Jan Paweł II; born Karol Józef Wojtyła [ˈkarɔl ˈjuzɛv vɔjˈtɨwa];[a] 18 May 1920 – 2 April 2005) was the head of the Catholic Church. What does it add to the article about John Paul II to know what the Italian or even Polish translatiuon is? Answer: nothing really, at least not enough to justify its use in the first sentence. However, in..The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːklənd, ˈfɔːl-, ˈfɒl-/;[5] Spanish: Islas Malvinas[A]) is an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, knowledge of the Spanish name (which isn't actually a translation) is useful because so many sources in different languages including English, refer to the islands as the Malvinas. The way these foreign translations are being used is riddled with original research. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 06:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a content dispute at Talk:Environment and Climate Change Canada#French translations, regarding French translations in the lead sentence. Your input would be appreciated. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I have started an RFC about a non-English translation in the lead. This discussion if focused on an interpretation of MOS:LEADLANG. Please join the discussion at Talk:Environment and Climate Change Canada#RfC about French translation in lead. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I want to add this sentence to the end of paragraph 2:
The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, and redundant citations shoul not be removed from the lead simply because they are repeated elsewhere.
What do y'all think?
Cessaune (
talk) 05:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Talk:The_Martian_(film)#Link_within_same_page_seems_redudant. Apokrif ( talk) 10:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
My personal viewPersonal views can be requested elsewhere WP:3RD. The question was asked to find out more from editors familiar with the past discussions to lead to these guidelines and the logic behind them, because this seems like something the guidelines might have addressed. Please indicate any relevant accessibility policies or guidelines that recommends adding extra links, especially ones that are redundant to the table of contents. WP:OVERLINK The link might seem harmless as a one-off but other editors might want to copy the example of a {{ Good article}}. If this link is acceptable, then why not fill the lead section with other links to sections within the article (such as the reception section)? Please note MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which says "Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." The logic of that advice would seem to also apply in the case of the lead section. -- 109.76.140.168 ( talk) 19:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe that it would be ideal if we also elaborated that links should not be used in the alternative names that are placed in bold. Right now, it only refers to the boldface reiteration of the title in the first sentence of a lead. Although, one of the two footnotes that are used, implies it by stating in general that linking part of the bolded text is discouraged because it changes the visual effect of bolding, and some readers will miss the visual cue which is the purpose of using boldface in the first place. Demetrios1993 ( talk) 21:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Should the lead section of an article contain links to sections that are further down on the same page? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 07:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
plotis being wikilinked to the Wikipedia page about plots in general, and would thus be astonished to find that it actually links to a section on the page about that film's plot), WP:OVERLINK (while not specifically prohibited by OVERLINK, these links are unnecessary in the same way linking common terms is unnecessary), and WP:SEAOFBLUE (if we added links to every section in the article, there is a fair probability of this happening). The only justification given by the opposing side thus far has been WP:BOLD, which is irrelevant to the crux of the matter. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 07:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
RfC earlier this yearthat I referred to above (and which hasn't yet been linked in this section) did have some confusion between links from the lead and references placed within the lead - the RfC was about one, but one participant kept on writing about the other. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 16:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
On 21:26, 21 December 2022, I removed a redundancy in the first sentence. MOS:REDUNDANCY states, "The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead if the article title is descriptive." Although some editors are of the opinion that this guidance are mainly intended for articles and not WP or MOS space, I believe that for the sake of coherence this guidance can be applied in this case.
User:Valjean chose to use "lead paragraph" in their edit. IMHO, I don't think this was a better or even accurate option because the lead can have several paragraphs.
User:CUA 27 stated when restoring to longstanding version, "This is the title of the article". Something that MOS:REDUNDANCY addresses, as mentioned in the beginning. Said guidance even cites a relevant example,
Pakistani–Iraqi relations are the relations between Pakistan and Iraq.
Iraq and Pakistan established diplomatic relations in 1947.
Likewise, in the first sentence of the current guidance,
The lead section of a Wikipedia article... is the section before the table of contents and the first heading.
The lead of a Wikipedia article... is the section before the table of contents and the first heading.
Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
IMHO, we should reverse the first and second sentences of this article. The first sentence should say what the lead sections is (ie, an introduction and summary). The second sentence should say where it goes (ie, before the TOC). This reordering sound also make it easier to fix the issue that is bugging Thinker 78. CUA 27 ( talk) 02:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. The lead section—also known as the beginning or introduction—is located before the table of contents and the first heading.Thinker78 (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. The lead section is located at the beginning of the article, before the table of contents and the first heading.-- Thinker78 (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. It is located at the beginning of the article, before the table of contents and the first heading.
The lead section of a Wikipedia article—also known as the lead, beginning or introduction—is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.
MOS:LEADLANG says "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses". It is my experience, however, that sometimes more than one foreign name is closely associated with a concept. For example, in the context of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Polish language is the main foreign one, but arguments have been made for Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ruthenian and Latin in various contexts. A quick glance at Stanisław Leszczyński (Polish name) shows Lithuanian and French used in lead (since Lithuanian is pretty standard for kings of PLC, and he was also associated with France). Stephen Báthory (English name) also lists Polish, Lithuanian and Hungarian (he was from Hungary). Sigismund III Vasa uses an English name, and lists Polish and Lithuanian in the lead. Etc. We need to decide if those articles all fail MoS or LEADLANG needs some rewording. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
it was not a simple operation I did and many of those edits are interconnected— Agreed. Which is why I am concerned that my partial rollback was worse than a complete rollback.
you did not even state a rationale for your edits in your edit summaries— That's true, but I did say "see talk page" and explained my rationale (which I thought too long for an edit summary) on the talk page. I still maintain my initial bullet-pointed comments and that my reversion of your punctuation change (over several edits) was correct. Mitch Ames ( talk) 05:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Let's move away from any finger pointing, and let's focus on substance instead. There have been a number of edits already, and I think (hope) we can all agree to discuss issues here before any further edits. With that throat-clearing out of the way, would someone (Thinker?) like to describe here the most significant perceived problems, and the proposed solutions. CUA 27 ( talk) 19:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence just to show etymology, for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names.— "just to show etymology" is a restrictive clause here, whereas previously it was not. The original was correct - one ought not (in general) include foreign equivalents at all, whereas your sentence implies that we can include them for any reason other than to show etymology.
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas.is incorrectly punctuated. The comma ought not be there and the semicolon should be a comma:
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons, romanizations of non-Latin scripts by commas.(as it was originally, with "and" being optional).
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas.
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts should be divided by commas.
References
I will start by replying to the initial bullet points of Mitch Ames.
I copied the word that was in the "Usage in first sentence" subsection of the "Alternative names" section in the version before my most controversial edits. "Relevant foreign-language names, such as in an article on a person who does not themselves write their name in English, are encouraged, usually in parentheses."
I integrated it in the specific subsection about foreign language in the first sentence ( MOS:LEADLANG). This because if there is a specific subsection about foreign language in the first sentence, it seemed logical to me that guidance about foreign language in the first sentence should be in said subsection. Because editors seeking guidance about foreign language would probably look in a foreign language section.
This latter section (Leadlang) was, "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence. For example, an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country will typically include the local-language equivalent".
As a result, my edit became, "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can and is encouraged to be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. For example, an article about a person who do not write their name in English. Or an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country.
Notice:
Thoughts about these bullet points? Thinker78 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
a person who do not writeis not grammatical English, and simply reflects an oversight in proofreading followed by copypasting. Likewise I am sure you understand
Or an article about a location in a non-English-speaking countryis not a complete sentence, since it lacks a required verb. As to the remainder of the content, I agree that
can and is encouraged tois wordy, and
can and shouldis strong. I think maybe
it is encouraged to include a single foreign language equivalent name in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. Guidance should also indicate that if multiple foreign language equivalent names seem equally appropriate (i.e. no consensus on which is more appropriate, especially in contentious topic areas where editors may feel their linguistic group is being slighted due to absence in the lead sentence), then zero foreign language equivalent names should be included, all being mentioned elsewhere (later in the lead paragraph, infobox, body, footnote...). 98.246.75.122 ( talk) 22:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I propose this change (relative to the current version of "Foreign language")
If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included (and is encouraged) in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. For example, an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country will typically include the local-language equivalent:
Chernivtsi Oblast (Ukrainian: Чернівецька область, Chernivetska oblast) is an oblast (province) in western Ukraine, bordering on Romania and Moldova.An article about a person whose native language is not English may include that person's native-language name:
Boris Vasilievich Spassky (Russian: Бори́с Васи́льевич Спа́сский, romanized: Borís Vasíl'yevich Spásskiy; born January 30, 1937) is a Russian chess grandmaster ...
Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
1. Looks good, but it is missing the rest of the content (about etymology, bolding, etc).
2. I am no fan of long foreign equivalents in the lead sentence. ... favor placing said content in footnotes.
Done There being no objections, I have made the change. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I propose changing the punctuation of this sentence in the current version of "Usage in first sentence") thus:
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons
;, romanizations of non-Latin scripts,by commas.
i.e. (because underlining and strike-through markup on punctuation can be hard to read) to:
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons, romanizations of non-Latin scripts by commas.
Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Thinker78 (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Separate languages should be divided by semicolons and romanizations of non-Latin scripts by commas.
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons, and romanizations of non-Latin scripts by commas.
Could some other editors please comment on the proposed change(s). Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Surely someone else must have an opinion. In the absence of any agreement, I propose that we should simply revert to the previous long-standing:
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons, and romanizations of non-Latin scripts by commas.
Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
References
That fragment could be the start of a sentence something like, "Separate languages into semicolon-separated series...", but it isn't. This is kind of a minor point, but in the current guideline, the sentence-initial Separate languages... is a type of garden-path sentence because of the possible misreading of separate as an imperative verb, instead of as an adjective. (In fact, I was a victim; I misread it, the first time I saw it on this page.) It's only two words into the sentence, so not a lot of backtracking is required for a proper parse, but still, there's that annoying, momentary hitch that occurs when you get to the word should, if you parsed it as a verb. Maybe the wording could be improved, but if not, no big deal. Mathglot ( talk) 21:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
The subsection Usage in first sentence duplicates the function of MOS:LEADLANG, except for its initial sentence. It provides guidance about foreign language and as such I think it belongs in MOS:LEADLANG in order to have such guidance mainly in one place. Therefore I propose deleting the subsection "Usage in first sentence". Its contents should be moved and integrated to LEADLANG, except for the initial sentence, that can be moved to MOS:ALTNAME. Thinker78 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Talk:Main Page#Today's Featured Article about the possible relevance of MOS:BOLDAVOID and MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD to the Today's Featured Article section of the Main Page. -- Jameboy ( talk) 02:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I've added some stats on lead length, based on a survey of last month's TFAs. It would have been ideal to base this on a whole year's worth, but it was annoying enough to count all of this for 31 articles, and I wouldn't volunteer to do 365 myself. If any one else wants to, however, then please feel free to grab the table out of the current revision of User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox 3. I doubt that we'll find anything special about last month, though. (I did word counts in Google Docs and the rest by hand.)
@ Thinker78 and @ SandyGeorgia, you might find this a useful follow-up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 22#Seeking consensus for table modification.
WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
May want to also reference WP:OTHERNAMES. Can the usage of a pejorative as an alternative name in the lead be addressed here. Based on the African-American page and the lack of mentioning of the pejorative for African-Americans in the lead there, I am guessing WP:OTHERNAMES and WP:ALTNAME is not calling for the mentioning of pejoratives in the lead. Can this be addressed clearly? Thanks LeenchaOromia ( talk) 16:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to include a foreign-language equivalent name in the opening sentence of articles such as Hungarians in the United Kingdom? My reading of MOS:LEADLANG is that it isn't, but I'd appreciate others' views. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a request for comment about whether boldface or links should be preferred in election article lead sentences. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a content dispute at Talk:T&T Supermarket#Trademark logo in first sentence regarding a company logo in the first sentence. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
"By default, there is no edit link just for the lead section, but registered users can get it by enabling one or both of the following preferences ..."
The second option (Enable section editing by right clicking on section) does not work for me. There is no [edit] link after activating that option and the lead section does not have a title to right-click. Maybe this tip is outdated and should be removed? Dalba 05:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-edittop.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
@import "https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-edittop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css";
"Usually" here can account for cases like "Foo, also known as Bar, Baz, or Quux", where the "Baz" item is actually not a redirect from "Baz", but maybe "Baz (chemistry)", and so it wouldn't fit an absolute redirect requirement, but would be visually confusing if de-boldfaced between the other two. "Usually" isn't blanket license to boldface things for emphasis.
Per the above, if Baz (chemistry)
is the only AKA, should it be bolded? My interpretation is no, it should only be bolded (on it's own) if it's an absolute redirect, but would like some feedback. Cheers. –
2.
O.
Boxing 01:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
... "Foo, also known as Bar, Baz, or Quux", ... "Baz" ... would be visually confusing if de-boldfaced between the other two.Possibly the one long sentence needs to be re-written / split into two, so it's easier to parse. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
wouldn't fit an absolute redirect requirementbit that threw me off. So, if somebody were to create The Joker (basketball player), that would satisfy BOLDALTNAMES for Nikola Jokic? – 2. O. Boxing 02:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
— Bagumba ( talk) 03:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead, especially if they redirect to the article, or are found on a disambiguation page or hatnote and link from those other names to the article.
Inspired by @ Aquillion's thread on the NPOV noticeboard, I think we should amend MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, changing the fourth item from:
One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
to:
One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective, contentious, or non-defining terms.
(change in bold)
As a quick reminder:
A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.
The guidance on definingness was written for categorization, but I think it is good advice for first sentences of biographies too, because the first sentence should also focus on describing how the subject is commonly and consistently referred to.
Definingness is already associated with lead sections:
if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;
This proposal would strengthen that association.
By asking editors to avoid non-defining terms, we address the problem of subjects being introduced as philanthropists, criminals, authors, and such, where those may be verifiable and even significant descriptors, but fall short of being what the subject is generally known for.
Problematic examples:
Christopher David Moyles (born 22 February 1974) is an English radio and television presenter, author and presenter of The Chris Moyles Show on Radio X.He's written a couple of autobiographies, but he's not known as an author.
John Carl Malone (born March 7, 1941) is an American billionaire businessman, landowner, and philanthropist.Sure, he's donated money, but I don't see sources introducing him as primarily a philanthropist.
Amber Laura Heard (born April 22, 1986) is an American actress, humanitarian, and social activist.Actress yes, but the other two seem oversold.
What do we think? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 10:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Gee, I don't know about this. Consider, for example,
Buzz Aldrin: an American former astronaut, engineer and fighter pilot.
There is no doubt whatsoever that "astronaut" is what he is best known for. But it is also true that this was only a small part of his life, and had he not become an astronaut, he would still be notable as an engineer for his work on orbital rendezvous and the
Aldrin cycler and as a fighter pilot for his exploits in Korea.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 07:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
...an American former astronaut and fighter pilot.Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 08:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I hope this means that we can remove all of the nationalities in the first sentence for articles on people for whom the nationality is not commonly and frequently mentioned when describing them. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Support the nom, quite sensible. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 13:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I tend to think yes as few readers of the other article would know that they would need to click through to the lead and then go down to the body to verify the info Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I rewrote LEADCITE and LEADCITE COMMENT: User:Cessaune/MOS:LEADCITE
It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing change; I'm willing to workshop something, but LEADCITE as it currently stands is messy, ambiguous, and contradictory. Cessaune [talk] 16:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed on mobile articles that the image (or infobox) places before the first paragraph in the code always appears after it instead (though not on user pages). What exactly causes this? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, I was wondering if it was something that could be added on other wikis and I couldn't find anything about it. Ringtail Raider ( talk) 17:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the first sentence of the article Talk:Oxford English Dictionary. If you can provide input that would be great. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
Should the manual of style require citations in the lead for contested statements about BLPs? The current text is generally considered to contradict itself on this point; see discussions here for details and general implications about what this would mean for the text. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Long-standing consensus at this article has it that the cost of citations in the lead (visual clutter) would exceed their benefit.DYK, ITN, GAN, FAC and most projects have held that every non-trivial statement is contested, so this would require the lead to be fully referenced like the article. In a massive article where each sentence summarizes a section of the body, that sentence will acquire all the references of the body. WP:V is satisfied by a fully referenced body. The presence or absence of citations in the lead will not alter whether or not a statement is contentious, and the issue usually revolves around whether a statement is WP:UNDUE, which is magnified by the lead being a summary, and the presence or citations will not alter that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
he was accused of sexual misconduct on several occasions[1][2][3][4][5], but denied accusations[6][7][8][9][10] ascribing them to smear campaign by his opponents.[11][12]Thanks but no thanks; proper summarizing works just fine by the existing means of consensus and dispute resoluton. No such user ( talk) 19:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
|rfcid=
from another RfC, as you did
here. Always let
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) assign its own - the rfcid is used as a key to a table of all RfCs, both ongoing and current, so must be unique; and it's also used as a link anchor, so following the link in
this RfC listing will jump to the other RfC, not to this one.Currently the guidance for length states, "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs." I propose cutting some words, because the whole lead guidance and the Manual of Style are guidelines, therefore it may be redundant stating again "as a general guideline, not an absolute rule" while subsequently the text also states "usually". I can see the intention is emphasis, but in my opinion there is too much emphasis and redundancy in the mentioned text. I propose as a copyedit leaving from the sentence just "the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs". Thinker78 (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok, if the extra words that seem repetitive are there to provide emphasis, is there another way to highlight said purpose, without repeating what in general applies to all guidelines? Or you prefer to stay as it is for the time being and if so why (per consensus?) Thinker78 (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Why is the SD template supposed to go above the (disambiguation) hatnotes ( WP:SDPLACE)? I did a search of the history of this talk page, but I can't seem to find the rationale. It doesn't seem logical to me that the short description of the content to go above the part that clarifies other content. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Spelunking in article history brought up this, i.e. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 13#Where to put {{short description}} (broken section link because a transclusion happens otherwise, d'oh, I suppose it has to be escaped somehow). -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
To use the prasing from WP:SHORTDESC, it applies ot the 'scope of the page', yet hatnotes are about what is outside the current scope of the page, which makes reading lead section sources with both shortdescs and hatnotes counterintuitive to me. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Anyone who looks at an article containing a hatnote using the Wikipedia App will see the short description rendered before any other content, and well before any hatnotes. It's obvious that a reader who spots a typo or other error in a short description and tries to correct it will expect to find the short description before any other text on the edit page. These are the folks we want to convert to editors and it's crazy to confuse them by trying to prescribe having items in the wikitext in a different order from the order in which many readers will see them. What is the argument for putting hatnotes in the wikitext above short descriptions? Whatever it is, it surely pales into insignificance when judged against the common sense of having items editable in the same order as they are viewed.
I've done this in articles with long leads, so that the main points are presented up front where the drive-by reader will see them. Sometimes a lead may only have 3-4 paragraphs, but they're rather long and technical, and could lose the casual reader. However, I don't see anything in the MOS that states this explicitly; I've inferred it from best practice in writing a section of an article. Should we say something explicit, or is the need for a summary para in the lead an indication that the lead as a whole needs to be reduced?
The article that made me think to look here was fetal heartbeat bill. Most news sources have decided to avoid that phrase because it's intentionally inaccurate. That IMO is a basic piece of info that belongs in the first paragraph, to explain why there are competing terms. Another editor argued that we're not allowed to duplicate information in the lead, and so they merged the entire medical para, which had been at the bottom of the lead, into the introductory paragraph. That, IMO, makes the intro rather opaque and the article less accessible.
Do we need to avoid repeating info in the lead, or can it be good practice to create an intro paragraph that presents key points of the lead, which in turn presents in more detail the key points of the article? — kwami ( talk) 19:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia leads are not written in news style.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion over at WP:SHIPS over how the project handles some disambiguators and whether the project’s practice should be brought in line with the guidance at MOS:FIRST or it should be an exception. Comments are invited here. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 10:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I worked on the table that appears on MOS:LEADLENGTH, expanding it to provide editors more information based on their diverse needs. To some, article length in characters would suffice, but others like me would like more units of measurement. Therefore I present the modifications I made to seek consensus and maybe replacing the current table already in the guideline. I didn't modify the original units, I only did some copyediting and added the other units of measurement columns.
Article length in characters | Article length in words [a] | Article length in kb [b] | Lead length, in paragraphs |
---|---|---|---|
Fewer than 15,000 | Fewer than 2,500 | Fewer than 15 | One or two |
15,000–30,000 | 2,500–5,000 | 15–30 | Two or three |
More than 30,000 | More than 5,000 | More than 30 | Three or four |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Notes
I present an example for consideration in several proposals on this page.
In general, I always support emphasizing words of readable prose over KB, along with clarification about how readable prose size is measured. But this table has led to misapplication of the overarching principles of WP:LEAD-- "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." If a (relatively) short but comprehensive article does that best in a four-paragraph lead, we should not constrain the lead simply because an article is relatively short.
See:
FAC reviewers a) missed the error, b) minimized the key points of WP:LEAD, and c) focused instead on the relatively less important guidance about length. [1] [2] Rather than defending the superior lead, the nominator reduced the lead to an inferior one, simply because the article had only a couple thousand words of readable prose.
If a relatively short article is comprehensive, we should not be reducing a lead which otherwise meets the more important aspects of WP:LEAD simply based on (over application of) a length guideline. This article's lead was damaged at FAC, and I've seen that more than once.
While we often emphasize that a guideline is just a guideline, to be taken with a grain of salt, they are often applied to excess. Can the wording here be adjusted to account for this problem? I am not an effective wordsmith, so don't try myself, but this is a recurring problem at FAC. In fact, the two reviewers who requested a lead reduction ( Ergo Sum and The Rambling Man) had likely been subjected to same on other articles, as they tend to write shorter articles. @ Ovinus: per separate discussion about reviews at FAC of leads on my talk that I haven't yet found time to reply to ... this, and lack of adequate scrutiny of leads at FAC (leading to the error on this FAC), is a problem. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article.Maybe, sometimes. But I believe the L. D. Reynolds FA example above presents a counterexample, and I suggest a comprehensive short article may warrant a longer lead than this table suggests, based on the more important principles of a good lead. I don't know how to fix the wording to reflect this, but just dropping the table still leaves us with the same problem, because it's also in the wording. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Alternate idea: thinking aloud, more work needed.
I am in agreement with the gist of what both XOR'easter and WhatamIdoing present above, and yet some sort of semi-numerical guidance (tempered with all the disclaimers) is needed to address those situations (like Hanford Site) where apparently novice editors are chunking new text into the lead rather than the body. This is often a problem in underdeveloped leads (and Hanford Site is only listed as an FA because no one has sent it to WP:FAR yet-- it appears abandoned and outdated).
What comes to mind is to do something like what is done at WP:ELNO:
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article.
That is, WP:ELNO qualifies the statement to what the article should become when fully developed. This makes sense to me as a medical editor because it would be OK to have a fully developed lead that covers everything at WP:MEDORDER, even if that content isn't yet fully developed in the body; that is, the lead could be well written yet disproportionate length-wise to what is in the (as yet underdeveloped) body. The lead in a fully developed, comprehensive article should not be artificially constrained but on the other hand, neither should it be allowed to sprawl like Hanford Site. An underdeveloped article might have a correctly written longer lead when measured proportionally, as may a relatively short article.
What if we dropped the table and the para suggestions, and suggested (loose) percentage ranges of overall measurable prosesize in the lead instead? I've looked at the dense medical FAs I write, and others like J. K. Rowling, as well as several other FAs mentioned on this page, and although we might get a bot to look at a bigger sample of FAs, we might suggest instead that fully developed long FAs tend to have leads that are in the range of 5% of overall word count measured by readable prose, while shorter or underdeveloped articles are around 11% of their prosesize in the lead, with medium-sized articles somewhere in between. I realize this leaves us with just another artificial numerical measure, which XOR objects to, but it wouldn't artificially constrain paragraphs, and it could provide (if we had more data) broader ranges to play with, while accounting for the article's development via its assessment.
Samples:
Longer FAs
Shorter FAs
Medium-size listed as FA, but not at standard
GA sample presented by Ovinus
Just an idea to experiment with ... more data on a larger sample of FAs would be needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
novice editors are chunking new text into the lead rather than the body. Novice editors do that just because the lead is what they see first. The choice to excise those chunks or migrate them into the body (if they aren't redundant there) can be made with a conceptual judgment call without running "readable prose size" numbers. (Typical edit summary: "way too detailed for the intro, which is meant to be a concise overview" or "these details already present in the appropriate section below".) XOR'easter ( talk) 16:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I have been working on a proposal for a new lead size guidance taking as basis general writing principles, Wikipedia guidance, and the input of editors who are contributing in the thread. I created a page ( Draft:MOS:LEADLENGTH table modification) for community discussion while I work on it to hopefully achieve a consensus proposal that can be accepted for inclusion in the guideline. Everyone is welcome to discuss any issues about it in its talke page. -- Thinker78 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
it doesn't satisfy editors' needs or desires as other guidelinesAssuming this vague criticism to be true, what is the #1 deficiency in your opinion? Please be specific so I don't have to ask you to articulate the #1 problem you want to fix for a third time? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I have put some significant work on the lead guidance modification, even though I understand it may not be adopted. It would be great if some editors provide some feedback so far for the draft (extended content needs conciliation yet), but I clarify it is still a work in progress and that I also need to finish analyzing the discussion in this thread. Thinker78 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I have come up with an option [ Draft:MOS:LEADLENGTH table modification#New recommended lead length guideline]. Feedback anyone? WhatamIdoing, SandyGeorgia? -- Thinker78 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's a great example of how NOT to write a first sentence, from the Teutonic Order article:
The Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem (official names: Latin: Ordo domus Sanctae Mariae Theutonicorum Hierosolymitanorum; Italian: L'Ordine dei Fratelli della Casa Tedesca di Santa Maria a Gerusalemme; Spanish: Orden de Hermanos de la Casa Alemana de Santa María en Jerusalén; French: Ordre des Frères de la Maison allemande de Sainte Marie à Jérusalem; German: Orden der Brüder vom Deutschen Haus der Heiligen Maria in Jerusalem; Dutch: Orde van de Broeders van het Duitse Huis van Sint-Maria in Jeruzalem; Polish: Zakon Szpitala Najświętszej Marii Panny Domu Niemieckiego w Jerozolimie), commonly known as the Teutonic Order (German: Deutscher Orden, Deutschherrenorden or Deutschritterorden), is a Catholic religious order founded as a military order c. 1190 in Acre, Kingdom of Jerusalem. CUA 27 ( talk) 21:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable in the Alternative Names section for cases of transgender individuals where their deadname was known enough/notable to be included under WP:DEADNAME, that while including the deadname is still fine, but normal bolding from a redirect should be held back except in the most extreme cases? For example, the case I started from is Maddy Thorson, where her deadname is notable but not extensively, so while its still a search term and should be in the lede, doesn't need to be highlighted. The same would likely go for The Wachowskis, where their first names were likely not as household compared to "The Wackowskis", so there's no need to bold their original names. But on the other hand, both the original names for Elliot Page and Caitlyn Jenner are household, well beyond the DEADNAME minimum threshold, and thus bolding their original names make sense.
The idea is that for those where the deadname should be mentioned but which lack the wide-scale recognition, we don't need to be calling out that name by bolding it, just letting it sit as normal in the lede. Masem ( t) 03:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Please comment in the RfC about the first sentence in Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#RfC on boldfacing of scientific names in articles about organisms. The discussion should take place there, not here, in order to keep the discussion centralized. The result may affect MOS:BOLDSYN. — BarrelProof ( talk) 01:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion about modifying the text of the leadcite template in Template talk:Leadcite comment. Your input is welcomed. Thinker78 (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Zaloni doesn't have one and there's not really any text already there that I can work with. The source I was using to add to the article doesn't help for general information because it's mostly PR doublespeak. And most of the article isn't much better.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
This discussion on WP:BLPN might be of interest to some people here. Connormah ( talk) 15:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I invite editors who are more or less fluent in MOS to participate in this discussion on a relatively simple dispute. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 00:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. I just want to draw your attention to the Manual of Style readability of the first sentence. Specifically, I want to highlight the article about Mother Teresa in Wikipedia and in Britannica [3]. No idea what the manual of style of this latter source is. But I am thinking something is amiss in their page or to be more objective, it is not of my personal liking. Thinker78 (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia "Previews" are the text shown in a popup box when hovering over a link to another page. These popups always show the first paragraph of a page. This manual should make clear that the first paragraph has special priority within wikipedia and is the only info seen if one doesn't click through to a page. The void century ( talk) 18:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I've seen this spelling many times, probably from British editors. It helps distinguish from other meanings of the word "lead" so I use it even though I'm American.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there no guidance re the relationship of lead and infobox content ??? Both of them are to be summaries of the important items of the topic, but I was surprised nothing is said in either MOS:LEAD or MOS:IB about how they are to get along or a balance of their respective content.
The only guidance I saw in MOS:LEAD for infoboxes was a sidenote in the placement guidance MOS:LEADORDER : " Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article, "
This interest came up from a TALK in Pound sterling noting the article starts with detailing of ISO code, abbreviation, symbols, and compound noun forms. To me this seemed poor narrative of redundant restating the Template:Infobox currency which is immediately alongside the lead. And almost all of the List of circulating currencies seem to start with the same sort of lead. It doesn't seem to be from a guidance of MOS:CURRENCY, or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, or a TALK in archives...
More than just currencies though, I am surprised there is not something at a general level talking about lead and infobox content... have I missed something ?
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 14:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignoredHawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
If the first paragraph of an article ends with a colon intended to lead into a quotation template, and if that article has an infobox or image, then the mobile display will put the infobox or image above that quotation in a way that will make no sense when the article is read top to bottom (for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Duck_test&oldid=1105847402).
Should MOS:OPEN caution against doing this? It feels like it might be technically bad practice even outside of mobile use, as breaking the key information of a paragraph into two paragraphs, one of them a quotation, goes against MOS:OPEN's list of what "the first paragraph" should be doing. (I'd assume that the API and tools like Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups would consider the quotation to be a separate, second paragraph, rather than part of the first; it's clearly what Wikipedia's mobile code for where to put the infobox is doing.) Lord Belbury ( talk) 13:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that the lead should not contain significant information that is never mentioned in the text of an article? Skimming quickly through the MOS now I don't see any such admonition, but may have missed it.
National Abortion Federation is in the news today, with an important article in the Washington Post, and people will be searching there. I think what must have happened is that this had been simply a stub with no lead, until February 2021 when an editor added a new section about Canada, which converted the entire stub to what appears to be a lead. In any event, the entire article badly needs updating and rewriting. (Don't look at me — I know nothing about the subject; and after getting in trouble several times as a noob, I've long restricted myself to spelling and grammar, and adding links.) Milkunderwood ( talk) 02:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem with the National Abortion Federation article is still unaddressed, and trying to fix it is way above my pay grade. I'm convinced that it had been a stub with no lead, concerning the U.S. organization, and when an editor added a new section on its presence in Canada, it converted the entire stub to what is now a lead. This makes the article a nonsensical mess. Milkunderwood ( talk) 20:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
An RFC here, has been opened. In relation to article leads. GoodDay ( talk) 02:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Do the guidelines mean, or should they mean, that we only use a foreign translation if knowledge of that foreign translation is significantly helpful in understanding the English language article? That makes sense to me. What does not make sense, and which is the cause of this problem, is adding foreign translations in a language that has some connection with the subject of the article. See Pope John Paul II (Latin: Ioannes Paulus II; Italian: Giovanni Paolo II; Polish: Jan Paweł II; born Karol Józef Wojtyła [ˈkarɔl ˈjuzɛv vɔjˈtɨwa];[a] 18 May 1920 – 2 April 2005) was the head of the Catholic Church. What does it add to the article about John Paul II to know what the Italian or even Polish translatiuon is? Answer: nothing really, at least not enough to justify its use in the first sentence. However, in..The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːklənd, ˈfɔːl-, ˈfɒl-/;[5] Spanish: Islas Malvinas[A]) is an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, knowledge of the Spanish name (which isn't actually a translation) is useful because so many sources in different languages including English, refer to the islands as the Malvinas. The way these foreign translations are being used is riddled with original research. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 06:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a content dispute at Talk:Environment and Climate Change Canada#French translations, regarding French translations in the lead sentence. Your input would be appreciated. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I have started an RFC about a non-English translation in the lead. This discussion if focused on an interpretation of MOS:LEADLANG. Please join the discussion at Talk:Environment and Climate Change Canada#RfC about French translation in lead. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I want to add this sentence to the end of paragraph 2:
The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, and redundant citations shoul not be removed from the lead simply because they are repeated elsewhere.
What do y'all think?
Cessaune (
talk) 05:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Talk:The_Martian_(film)#Link_within_same_page_seems_redudant. Apokrif ( talk) 10:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
My personal viewPersonal views can be requested elsewhere WP:3RD. The question was asked to find out more from editors familiar with the past discussions to lead to these guidelines and the logic behind them, because this seems like something the guidelines might have addressed. Please indicate any relevant accessibility policies or guidelines that recommends adding extra links, especially ones that are redundant to the table of contents. WP:OVERLINK The link might seem harmless as a one-off but other editors might want to copy the example of a {{ Good article}}. If this link is acceptable, then why not fill the lead section with other links to sections within the article (such as the reception section)? Please note MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which says "Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." The logic of that advice would seem to also apply in the case of the lead section. -- 109.76.140.168 ( talk) 19:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe that it would be ideal if we also elaborated that links should not be used in the alternative names that are placed in bold. Right now, it only refers to the boldface reiteration of the title in the first sentence of a lead. Although, one of the two footnotes that are used, implies it by stating in general that linking part of the bolded text is discouraged because it changes the visual effect of bolding, and some readers will miss the visual cue which is the purpose of using boldface in the first place. Demetrios1993 ( talk) 21:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Should the lead section of an article contain links to sections that are further down on the same page? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 07:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
plotis being wikilinked to the Wikipedia page about plots in general, and would thus be astonished to find that it actually links to a section on the page about that film's plot), WP:OVERLINK (while not specifically prohibited by OVERLINK, these links are unnecessary in the same way linking common terms is unnecessary), and WP:SEAOFBLUE (if we added links to every section in the article, there is a fair probability of this happening). The only justification given by the opposing side thus far has been WP:BOLD, which is irrelevant to the crux of the matter. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 07:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
RfC earlier this yearthat I referred to above (and which hasn't yet been linked in this section) did have some confusion between links from the lead and references placed within the lead - the RfC was about one, but one participant kept on writing about the other. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 16:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
On 21:26, 21 December 2022, I removed a redundancy in the first sentence. MOS:REDUNDANCY states, "The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead if the article title is descriptive." Although some editors are of the opinion that this guidance are mainly intended for articles and not WP or MOS space, I believe that for the sake of coherence this guidance can be applied in this case.
User:Valjean chose to use "lead paragraph" in their edit. IMHO, I don't think this was a better or even accurate option because the lead can have several paragraphs.
User:CUA 27 stated when restoring to longstanding version, "This is the title of the article". Something that MOS:REDUNDANCY addresses, as mentioned in the beginning. Said guidance even cites a relevant example,
Pakistani–Iraqi relations are the relations between Pakistan and Iraq.
Iraq and Pakistan established diplomatic relations in 1947.
Likewise, in the first sentence of the current guidance,
The lead section of a Wikipedia article... is the section before the table of contents and the first heading.
The lead of a Wikipedia article... is the section before the table of contents and the first heading.
Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
IMHO, we should reverse the first and second sentences of this article. The first sentence should say what the lead sections is (ie, an introduction and summary). The second sentence should say where it goes (ie, before the TOC). This reordering sound also make it easier to fix the issue that is bugging Thinker 78. CUA 27 ( talk) 02:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. The lead section—also known as the beginning or introduction—is located before the table of contents and the first heading.Thinker78 (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. The lead section is located at the beginning of the article, before the table of contents and the first heading.-- Thinker78 (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. It is located at the beginning of the article, before the table of contents and the first heading.
The lead section of a Wikipedia article—also known as the lead, beginning or introduction—is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.
MOS:LEADLANG says "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses". It is my experience, however, that sometimes more than one foreign name is closely associated with a concept. For example, in the context of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Polish language is the main foreign one, but arguments have been made for Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ruthenian and Latin in various contexts. A quick glance at Stanisław Leszczyński (Polish name) shows Lithuanian and French used in lead (since Lithuanian is pretty standard for kings of PLC, and he was also associated with France). Stephen Báthory (English name) also lists Polish, Lithuanian and Hungarian (he was from Hungary). Sigismund III Vasa uses an English name, and lists Polish and Lithuanian in the lead. Etc. We need to decide if those articles all fail MoS or LEADLANG needs some rewording. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
it was not a simple operation I did and many of those edits are interconnected— Agreed. Which is why I am concerned that my partial rollback was worse than a complete rollback.
you did not even state a rationale for your edits in your edit summaries— That's true, but I did say "see talk page" and explained my rationale (which I thought too long for an edit summary) on the talk page. I still maintain my initial bullet-pointed comments and that my reversion of your punctuation change (over several edits) was correct. Mitch Ames ( talk) 05:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Let's move away from any finger pointing, and let's focus on substance instead. There have been a number of edits already, and I think (hope) we can all agree to discuss issues here before any further edits. With that throat-clearing out of the way, would someone (Thinker?) like to describe here the most significant perceived problems, and the proposed solutions. CUA 27 ( talk) 19:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence just to show etymology, for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names.— "just to show etymology" is a restrictive clause here, whereas previously it was not. The original was correct - one ought not (in general) include foreign equivalents at all, whereas your sentence implies that we can include them for any reason other than to show etymology.
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas.is incorrectly punctuated. The comma ought not be there and the semicolon should be a comma:
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons, romanizations of non-Latin scripts by commas.(as it was originally, with "and" being optional).
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas.
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts should be divided by commas.
References
I will start by replying to the initial bullet points of Mitch Ames.
I copied the word that was in the "Usage in first sentence" subsection of the "Alternative names" section in the version before my most controversial edits. "Relevant foreign-language names, such as in an article on a person who does not themselves write their name in English, are encouraged, usually in parentheses."
I integrated it in the specific subsection about foreign language in the first sentence ( MOS:LEADLANG). This because if there is a specific subsection about foreign language in the first sentence, it seemed logical to me that guidance about foreign language in the first sentence should be in said subsection. Because editors seeking guidance about foreign language would probably look in a foreign language section.
This latter section (Leadlang) was, "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence. For example, an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country will typically include the local-language equivalent".
As a result, my edit became, "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can and is encouraged to be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. For example, an article about a person who do not write their name in English. Or an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country.
Notice:
Thoughts about these bullet points? Thinker78 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
a person who do not writeis not grammatical English, and simply reflects an oversight in proofreading followed by copypasting. Likewise I am sure you understand
Or an article about a location in a non-English-speaking countryis not a complete sentence, since it lacks a required verb. As to the remainder of the content, I agree that
can and is encouraged tois wordy, and
can and shouldis strong. I think maybe
it is encouraged to include a single foreign language equivalent name in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. Guidance should also indicate that if multiple foreign language equivalent names seem equally appropriate (i.e. no consensus on which is more appropriate, especially in contentious topic areas where editors may feel their linguistic group is being slighted due to absence in the lead sentence), then zero foreign language equivalent names should be included, all being mentioned elsewhere (later in the lead paragraph, infobox, body, footnote...). 98.246.75.122 ( talk) 22:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I propose this change (relative to the current version of "Foreign language")
If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included (and is encouraged) in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. For example, an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country will typically include the local-language equivalent:
Chernivtsi Oblast (Ukrainian: Чернівецька область, Chernivetska oblast) is an oblast (province) in western Ukraine, bordering on Romania and Moldova.An article about a person whose native language is not English may include that person's native-language name:
Boris Vasilievich Spassky (Russian: Бори́с Васи́льевич Спа́сский, romanized: Borís Vasíl'yevich Spásskiy; born January 30, 1937) is a Russian chess grandmaster ...
Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
1. Looks good, but it is missing the rest of the content (about etymology, bolding, etc).
2. I am no fan of long foreign equivalents in the lead sentence. ... favor placing said content in footnotes.
Done There being no objections, I have made the change. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I propose changing the punctuation of this sentence in the current version of "Usage in first sentence") thus:
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons
;, romanizations of non-Latin scripts,by commas.
i.e. (because underlining and strike-through markup on punctuation can be hard to read) to:
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons, romanizations of non-Latin scripts by commas.
Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Thinker78 (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Separate languages should be divided by semicolons and romanizations of non-Latin scripts by commas.
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons, and romanizations of non-Latin scripts by commas.
Could some other editors please comment on the proposed change(s). Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Surely someone else must have an opinion. In the absence of any agreement, I propose that we should simply revert to the previous long-standing:
Separate languages should be divided by semicolons, and romanizations of non-Latin scripts by commas.
Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
References
That fragment could be the start of a sentence something like, "Separate languages into semicolon-separated series...", but it isn't. This is kind of a minor point, but in the current guideline, the sentence-initial Separate languages... is a type of garden-path sentence because of the possible misreading of separate as an imperative verb, instead of as an adjective. (In fact, I was a victim; I misread it, the first time I saw it on this page.) It's only two words into the sentence, so not a lot of backtracking is required for a proper parse, but still, there's that annoying, momentary hitch that occurs when you get to the word should, if you parsed it as a verb. Maybe the wording could be improved, but if not, no big deal. Mathglot ( talk) 21:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
The subsection Usage in first sentence duplicates the function of MOS:LEADLANG, except for its initial sentence. It provides guidance about foreign language and as such I think it belongs in MOS:LEADLANG in order to have such guidance mainly in one place. Therefore I propose deleting the subsection "Usage in first sentence". Its contents should be moved and integrated to LEADLANG, except for the initial sentence, that can be moved to MOS:ALTNAME. Thinker78 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Talk:Main Page#Today's Featured Article about the possible relevance of MOS:BOLDAVOID and MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD to the Today's Featured Article section of the Main Page. -- Jameboy ( talk) 02:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I've added some stats on lead length, based on a survey of last month's TFAs. It would have been ideal to base this on a whole year's worth, but it was annoying enough to count all of this for 31 articles, and I wouldn't volunteer to do 365 myself. If any one else wants to, however, then please feel free to grab the table out of the current revision of User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox 3. I doubt that we'll find anything special about last month, though. (I did word counts in Google Docs and the rest by hand.)
@ Thinker78 and @ SandyGeorgia, you might find this a useful follow-up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 22#Seeking consensus for table modification.
WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
May want to also reference WP:OTHERNAMES. Can the usage of a pejorative as an alternative name in the lead be addressed here. Based on the African-American page and the lack of mentioning of the pejorative for African-Americans in the lead there, I am guessing WP:OTHERNAMES and WP:ALTNAME is not calling for the mentioning of pejoratives in the lead. Can this be addressed clearly? Thanks LeenchaOromia ( talk) 16:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to include a foreign-language equivalent name in the opening sentence of articles such as Hungarians in the United Kingdom? My reading of MOS:LEADLANG is that it isn't, but I'd appreciate others' views. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a request for comment about whether boldface or links should be preferred in election article lead sentences. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a content dispute at Talk:T&T Supermarket#Trademark logo in first sentence regarding a company logo in the first sentence. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
"By default, there is no edit link just for the lead section, but registered users can get it by enabling one or both of the following preferences ..."
The second option (Enable section editing by right clicking on section) does not work for me. There is no [edit] link after activating that option and the lead section does not have a title to right-click. Maybe this tip is outdated and should be removed? Dalba 05:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-edittop.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
@import "https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-edittop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css";
"Usually" here can account for cases like "Foo, also known as Bar, Baz, or Quux", where the "Baz" item is actually not a redirect from "Baz", but maybe "Baz (chemistry)", and so it wouldn't fit an absolute redirect requirement, but would be visually confusing if de-boldfaced between the other two. "Usually" isn't blanket license to boldface things for emphasis.
Per the above, if Baz (chemistry)
is the only AKA, should it be bolded? My interpretation is no, it should only be bolded (on it's own) if it's an absolute redirect, but would like some feedback. Cheers. –
2.
O.
Boxing 01:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
... "Foo, also known as Bar, Baz, or Quux", ... "Baz" ... would be visually confusing if de-boldfaced between the other two.Possibly the one long sentence needs to be re-written / split into two, so it's easier to parse. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
wouldn't fit an absolute redirect requirementbit that threw me off. So, if somebody were to create The Joker (basketball player), that would satisfy BOLDALTNAMES for Nikola Jokic? – 2. O. Boxing 02:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
— Bagumba ( talk) 03:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead, especially if they redirect to the article, or are found on a disambiguation page or hatnote and link from those other names to the article.
Inspired by @ Aquillion's thread on the NPOV noticeboard, I think we should amend MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, changing the fourth item from:
One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
to:
One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective, contentious, or non-defining terms.
(change in bold)
As a quick reminder:
A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.
The guidance on definingness was written for categorization, but I think it is good advice for first sentences of biographies too, because the first sentence should also focus on describing how the subject is commonly and consistently referred to.
Definingness is already associated with lead sections:
if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;
This proposal would strengthen that association.
By asking editors to avoid non-defining terms, we address the problem of subjects being introduced as philanthropists, criminals, authors, and such, where those may be verifiable and even significant descriptors, but fall short of being what the subject is generally known for.
Problematic examples:
Christopher David Moyles (born 22 February 1974) is an English radio and television presenter, author and presenter of The Chris Moyles Show on Radio X.He's written a couple of autobiographies, but he's not known as an author.
John Carl Malone (born March 7, 1941) is an American billionaire businessman, landowner, and philanthropist.Sure, he's donated money, but I don't see sources introducing him as primarily a philanthropist.
Amber Laura Heard (born April 22, 1986) is an American actress, humanitarian, and social activist.Actress yes, but the other two seem oversold.
What do we think? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 10:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Gee, I don't know about this. Consider, for example,
Buzz Aldrin: an American former astronaut, engineer and fighter pilot.
There is no doubt whatsoever that "astronaut" is what he is best known for. But it is also true that this was only a small part of his life, and had he not become an astronaut, he would still be notable as an engineer for his work on orbital rendezvous and the
Aldrin cycler and as a fighter pilot for his exploits in Korea.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 07:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
...an American former astronaut and fighter pilot.Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 08:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I hope this means that we can remove all of the nationalities in the first sentence for articles on people for whom the nationality is not commonly and frequently mentioned when describing them. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Support the nom, quite sensible. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 13:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I tend to think yes as few readers of the other article would know that they would need to click through to the lead and then go down to the body to verify the info Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I rewrote LEADCITE and LEADCITE COMMENT: User:Cessaune/MOS:LEADCITE
It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing change; I'm willing to workshop something, but LEADCITE as it currently stands is messy, ambiguous, and contradictory. Cessaune [talk] 16:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed on mobile articles that the image (or infobox) places before the first paragraph in the code always appears after it instead (though not on user pages). What exactly causes this? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, I was wondering if it was something that could be added on other wikis and I couldn't find anything about it. Ringtail Raider ( talk) 17:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the first sentence of the article Talk:Oxford English Dictionary. If you can provide input that would be great. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)