Talk:William Sloane Coffin Sr.

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Biography header

Looks fine to me, it separates the lede from the biography and lets the reader know that the chronology restarts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A stub article such as this one doesn't need the information to be divided into sections -- there's simply not enough there to be necessary. In any event, "Biography" is generally not the header used, "Life and career" is, on the theory that the entire article is the biography.

Please link to that rule. The references are not a biography, the external links are not a biography, the see-also section is not a biography. We all have our personal preferences, but please do not expound yours as !wikilaw. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for additional input at WikiProject Biography. The specific question is whether "Biography" or "Life and career" is the preferred term for a bio article's main section. BMK (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bolded terms in article

Can you link to that !Wikirule please. Once again citing rules, but never linking to them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's not a "rule", it's just standard practice.~~ BMK (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for additional input at WikiProject Redirect, the question being is is standard practice to bold words which appear in an article which are redirects to the article. In this case Hearth and Home Corporation redirects here, and the question is whether it should be bolded in its first appearance in the article. BMK (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MOSBOLD#Other uses:

Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases: ... To identify terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the ~~targets~~ subjects of redirects to the article or section (emphasis added)

BMK (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does "Hearth and Home Corporation" get bolded but not the other company names that are redirects? I am not following your logic. Your bold company name is not the "beginning of a section of an article". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other companies you made into redirects to this article should have been redirected to W. & J. Sloane, because they were subsidiaries of that company, so I changed them to the obviously correct target. "Home & Hearth", on the other hand, was a project of Coffin's, not in any way related to his family company, so the redirect to this article is proper, and the term is bolded. As for your bolding "Coffin, Sr.", I have to assume you were being a little pointy with that, no? BMK (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But these terms are bold in the middle of a section that isn't the target of redirects to this article, nor specifically about the company. In terms of standard practice, I do sometimes come across bolded terms in the middle of articles, but more often find they conform to MOS:BOLD. The variation in style doesn't seem to make the Wikipedia any more professional-looking. ‑‑Yodin^T 11:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's pretty unusual to bold anything except synonyms or near synonyms for the article subject. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I would say that the quoted guideline disagrees with you. BMK (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Incoming from project talkpage) You're both correct, essentially. It is unusual to find anything in bold in the lead other than alternative names (that are usually redirects). And yet the style/formatting guideline does allow per the "principle of least astonishment" to format this particular redirect, Hearth and Home Corporation, in bold. Uncommon but not outside compliance. Be prosperous! Paine 05:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sloane vs Coffin

Yes, my mistake, maternal grandfather. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. BMK (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]