Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Headache inducing clusterfuck

Compare these introductions:A, B.

'A' seems to be the "the way it is done around here"™ but it makes the first sentence, if not the whole introduction, unreadable. All that pronunciation, transliteration and translation shit needs to be shoveled off to the side somehow. Any geniuses here want to make a suggestion? (I've made mine).TungstenCarbide (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint here. While I don't favor entirely eliminating these foreign-version names for the articles, I do think that there need to be some limits, out of consideration to the readers of the article. Your concerns about this are similar to ones we are addressing in the section immediately preceding this one. Please read and comment, if you have something to add. Unschool 07:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't favor eliminating this stuff either, just repackaging it. (sorry, didn't notice the section above.)TungstenCarbide (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I very much approve of the title of this section and think that the headache-inducing stuff is much better placed in an infobox somewhere near the top of its respective article. -- Hux (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Internal page anchors

An edit just made has the summary, "it is not a generally accepted practice that an article has internal links to other sections in the same article."[1] The usage of internal links is shown at Help:Anchors and Help:Section#Section_linking explains the code to link to somewhere else on the same page: "Links in the form [[#anchor_name]] will link to any anchor named "anchor_name" on the page". It's not that common, probably because not many people are aware of the facility, but it does occur and makes sense as a useful way to navigate round the page, where relevant. Ty 05:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, it's stylistically poor - if done in the lede then it looks inconsistent unless every section of the article is being linked from its summary, and if done in the article body it is frequently a workaround for a failure to lay concepts out in a logical order. It's also frequently done in parentheses which say something like "(see here)", which I've always found to be inappropriate intrusion (as far as I'm concerned there should be no user instruction of this type in articles except for in hat/footnotes). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bold suggestion

Leads are getting longer and longer and can be a pain to scroll. Contents boxes lose their purpose if a user has to scroll down a long way to get there. So here's a suggestion.

"The lead should normally be two sections: one paragraph of no more than 100 words and an introduction of no more than 200 words. The introduction should be formatted separately so that the table of contents displays without need for scrolling."

Kevin McCready (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with the intention behind this, but I don't understand your wording - can you try and say what you mean more explicitly? You mean (in a mature article, presumably) there should always be a separate section entitled "Introduction" or similar?--Kotniski (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Lordy. Strongly opposed here, I'm afraid. The reason the lede is above the TOC in the first place is because it should be read; the TOC is just a handy way of getting around after that. I rather think that we've got a much bigger problem with ledes that are too short than with those that are too long. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The leads are, in effect, little articles, summarising the whole page. I often just read the lead if I don't want to go into depth–I suspect many readers are the same. Four paragraphs maximum is the best principle, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that many ledes have gotten too long. Having said, so, however, I don't agree with this proposal. I agree with User:Qp10qp; a person should be able obtain a basic familiarity with the topic by reading the lede, and the four-paragraph maximum is a good limit on this. However, I will agree that four paragraphs is not always needed. The solution to the very real problem that User:Mccready brings to our attention is simply better editing of overly long ledes. Unschool 05:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

An "introduction" as a different section doesn't make much sense: that's the role of the Lead Section. however, with Mobile access in mind, I agree that some Leads are too long, and some mid-range articles don't even have a Lead as such; so I agree that some standard must be set, and that a paragraph count doesn't help much either: a word count between 100-300 words sounds sensible, as you suggest. Lwyx (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Embedded lists

I've come across this problem several times before, but I've never seen it addressed in the guideline; I think it would be wise to do so at this time. Basically, there are some editors (for the most part new editors) who add long lists to sections, in particular lead sections. Recently, a fairly new editor did this to Counterculture of the 1960s (It's still in the lead section as of this edit). Now, my sole interest here is in seeing the guideline address this issue, particularly in terms of using (or rather preferring) prose in the lead rather than long lists, which read as basic outlines that should probably remain on the talk page until they are fleshed out and turned into prose. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that there would be no harm in adding this to the guideline, but honestly, I doubt it will do any good, either. Since it is new users (I presume you are correct in saying this) who have not learned about policies and guidelines, with the guideline amended as you propose, nothing will change. New users will continue to make this mistake, and experienced editors will continue to have to correct it.

I'm probably as cavalier as I am about this because it has yet to become a problem for me. Sorry that it has plagued you, but it looks to me like, no matter what, you're just going to have to keep cleaning up their errors. That's the best way for newbies to learn, anyhow, by having their mistakes reverted. But I guess it wouldn't hurt to have a guideline to point to, eh? Well, why don't you propose some language? Unschool 21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple things first: 1) Previous versions of this guideline used the word prose to describe the introductory text - but the current version does not. Restoring this wording to the relevant section would help; 2) Can you think of situations where long lists should appear in lead sections? On another note altogether, I see the guideline has really changed since the last time I looked at it. At what point did placing maintenance tags in the lead section become a guideline? I've always preferred placing them in the section they most apply to whenever possible. In other words, specific maintenance tags should always be preferred over general ones, and encouraging editors to place general tags in the lead section does not help other editors improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Your point about inclusion of the word "prose" is an excellent one, and clearly would cover this problem with lists. Regarding the maintenance tags, I personally agree with you (and indeed, might well go further than you), but I don't remember a time when the maintenance tags were not included in here. Perhaps I have lost more brain cells than I realized. Anyway, I consider both of your suggestions to be improvements to the current state of the guideline, and would thus support you if you choose to make these changes. Unschool 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for losing focus. I was in a hurry and I wanted to get in as much as I could before I forgot. Anyway, I do think it is important to discuss prose in the guideline. The word last appeared in the article on 28 September,[2] but even then, it wasn't that clear. So, to get back on track: When we say, "the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article," we are implicitly talking about prose, not embedded lists. Now, it looks like Wikipedia:Embedded list is helpful here, not just to reiterate the guideline but adapting it to this one. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say counterculture of the 1960s is just a cruddy article on the subject. It's got low readability throughout -- no narrative line, no structure, basically just a set of summaries of other articles relating to the subject of "60s counterculture". I don't think it's something that should be (or can be?) cured legislatively -- what's needed is for a good writer to come along and put a real article in its place. (And sadly, Learner does not appear to be that writer. The article is categorically worse since he or she came to it: [3].)

Would it be possible to have a list in the lede of an article that deserved to be there? Maybe -- not often, but maybe. I wouldn't want to ban it on the basis of a really awful example.--Father Goose (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Goose, with all respect, I am completely unable to imagine an instance where a list would be appropriate within the lede. (Of course, I'm not so young as I used to be, so maybe my Imagination Gene has become a little inflexible.) But in all seriousness, without an example of two that make sense to me and others, you can't expect our blessing. Personally, a list is antithetical to my notion of what a lede should look like. Unschool 05:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I could see a list being potentially appropriate in the lede of a set index article such as USS Enterprise, which is a list-y article to begin with. But my main point here is that I don't think we should introduce a specific prohibition on lists in ledes on the basis of one or two examples of bad writing. It's too WP:BEANSy. Are lists in ledes really a common problem? If so, then we should say something. But if not, it's one of a thousand things we'd be better off fixing on a case-by-case basis instead of wagging a legislative finger at it. Our rules are cumbersome enough as it is.--Father Goose (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree that bulleted lists should be avoided where at all possible in an article's lede. In particular, the current lede to the counterculture article is a total train wreck. We should be actively discouraging this in favour of prose - specifically, any instance of a list should be replaced by a summary of its contents. Reducing a set of prose to bullet points is common in the PowerPoint Age, but it's very rarely the best way to summarise material. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What should be bolded?

I see sometimes that when there is something known by several names (which all redirect to the same article), the article has multiple names in bold in the lede. (Like the Panchatantra article.) For example, McKean's law redirects to Muphry's law, and its first occurrence (in the fourth paragraph) is bolded. Is there policy about this? Should Skitt's law or Greenrd's Law (which also redirect to the same page) be bolded, even though they occur in the middle of a sentence in the fifth paragraph? On the one hand, it's awkward to read an article which has too much bolding. On the other hand (for long articles, especially) it can be very confusing to a reader to follow a redirect and come to a page which seems to be about something entirely different. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is all a matter of common sense. Bolding is obtrusive, and so the writing should not allow it (or any other formatting such as brackets, italics, non-Roman scripts, etc.) to swamp the opening. The opening sentences should be allowed to breathe. Too many people, however, think there is a Wikipedia rule somewhere that requires the greatest amount of information possible to be stuffed in as quickly as possible. But the first principle of good openings is to grab readers not to put them off. So I think it fine that McKean's law is not introduced until the fourth paragraph. The redirected reader would have realised that the page was about much the same law. In the case of Panchatantra, common sense has clearly disappeared over the horizon with its backside on fire. The two or three alternative names (if there are any) by which something may be best known in English usage should be bolded, perhaps, but any further names are best addressed in a note. If a thicket of such names has formed, best to torch it. If the names are a political issue, as sometimes happens, the matter could be addressed in the body of the article as relevant content. qp10qp (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the project page explains this pretty well, saying "As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the page title should be as early as possible in the first sentence and should be in boldface:" and "If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance. But do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology. Foreign names (including transcriptions) that use the Roman alphabet should be italicized if they are not bolded; those written in other alphabets (such as Cyrillic) should not." (my itals). That guidance is specifically restricted to the initial sentence, though, and it seems to me that it should apply throughout the lead section.

Also note Emphasis in WP:MOS#Italics which, in part, says "Generally, the more highlighting in an article, the less the effect of each instance."

In cases similar to Panchatantra I think it would be better to place the info about alternative namings in a footnote. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers

There does not seem to be any mention of whether spoilers or plot material should be included in the lead. I feel it is wholly counter to the goals of the encyclopedia to include outright spoilers in the lead section. As it stands virtually every article I've ever read has a simple, spoiler-free plot summary, but now I am seeing that contested by self-rightous editors who plug their ears and waving a "no deleting spoilers because they are spoilers" sign. Readers expect to be able to comfortably read the lead of an article without having an essential plot point or twist ruined for them. It is perfectly acceptable and appropriate to include spoilers in the body of the article, but certainly not in the lead. Readers should be able to peruse the lead with the same comfort as a review or the summary on the back of a DVD or novel - a general summary to provide an idea of the content, not an outright declaration of the intricate twists and turns of the story. Some guy (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For context: Talk:Watchmen#Spoiler in the lead and Wikipedia: Spoiler. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Position of protection tags?

Alright, so the Elements of the Lead section states that maintenance boxes should come after disambiguation links, but does this include the full-size protection templates (such as {{pp-dispute}})? I ask because I recently brought up the question at Talk:Barack Obama, not having found a particular guideline or policy which states whether protection templates are an exception. It'd be nice if there were a clarification in this guideline if necessary. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In my experience protection templates, such as the one above, are placed directly at the top of the article. Besides looking better (see here), placement directly at the top draws immediate attention to the article's situation. KnightLago (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifying the length of the lede

Any problems? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Lead_section&curid=526968&diff=276631861&oldid=276631604 It should be lower, as those are high numbers.

I don't necessarily have any objections to the lengths proposed. I am wondering, however, if there is truly a problem that needs to be addressed. I see that this topic has been discussed numerous times in the past ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) in one way or another, but the topic does not appear to carry a great deal of urgency. How big a problem do we consider this to be? Is there more of a problem with overly-long or with overly-short leads? Just some thoughts. Unschool 01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of "Lead"?

Does anyone know what this means exactly? "The lead serves as both an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking someone else would have answered by now. The meaning is that the lede has two purposes:

• It provides a concise summary of the entire article. If you only read the lede you should at least have a sense of all the major points that will be covered. In this sense it serves like an abstract.
• It is also the first section that a reader sees, so it also serves as an introduction by placing the topic in context, orienting the reader to the material, and foreshadowing the rest of the article.

Of course these can support each other, but occasionally articles go too far in either direction – they can leave too much out of the lede in an attempt to be introductory, or ignore all introduction and assume the reader is already familiar with the topic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: References in the Lead

We need to clean up ugly leads and avoid unnecessary controversy. 04:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A perennial problem that causes some unnecessary controversy is the use of refs in the lead, which can sometimes make a lead rather bulky and clumsy. We need leads that create a good first impression, leads that are clean and simple.

Currently this policy has a section about how to use citations in the lead, and it contains this sentence:

"There is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads."

I'd like to start a discussion about this practice, and it will likely require a change of the policy(ies) related to this. I think we can manage just fine without a long list of links in the lead. I think we can keep it to a minimum.

Let me start with some basic presuppositions. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will point it out ;-):

1. The lead must summarize all significant content.

2. That content is already properly sourced, or it shouldn't be in the body of the article, and therefore there is no need for duplication of the refs in the lead.

3. To summarize the content efficiently, everything that deserves a heading should be mentioned very shortly in the LEAD.

4. Long and important sections may deserve several sentences, and short ones may only deserve a sentence or phrase.

This leads to a fifth point as my suggested improvement:

5. Every phrase, sentence, or group of sentences in the lead that summarizes a section, should contain only one ref that points to that section. This would ensure that all significant content is mentioned, and eliminate all doubt about which content is being discussed. It would also make it easier to update the lead when content is changed.

I think we could clean things up by specifically eliminating any requirement for citations to external sources in the lead. Instead we could use internal links to sections as refs in the LEAD. These refs would not appear in the references section near the bottom, but would just hop back and forth between the lead and the article section using <A HREF="#spot"> tags.

-- Brangifer (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll need those refs to avoid people thinking it's unreferenced.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

They would be there, but we wouldn't have the long rows of refs after a single sentence, which we occasionally have. They make a lead look really ugly and unreadable. Right now we have a selective use of some or all refs, which are then duplicated in the body of the article. That would be unnecessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, especially point five - pointing to the relevant section, and perhaps a footnote/comment which contains the reference tag names? Verbal chat 12:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not all facts are in the body though; birthdates for example. These need to be referenced, and you can't reference them elsewhere. That's the screw-case.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

True enough, since we often add small details without them appearing in the body of the article. This is technically a violation of LEAD and can be fixed by just following the rules for LEAD, or we can just allow this as an exception to what is being proposed here, and just use a single ref. Either way it's easily solved. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There's also the big problem with contentious leads that sometimes you need 3-4 references to back up the statements in it. I've seen leads thrash about for months until you have a row of references that are essentially inarguable. So, basically, I don't care how untidy it is.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That problem is what inspired this suggestion and this is the way to solve that problem. I've seen rows of references as long as 10-12! That's absurd. It is especially problematic with controversial articles, and we can solve this by keeping all those references in the body of the article, and then just using one link to point to the appropriate section. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The missing tool is a method of internal links so that statements in the lede can be verifiably associated with the basis statement in the body of the article. Absent that kind of tool, the next best thing is to reference in the lede, but ensure all those references are named references used elsewhere in the article. We can do that simply by saying "References in the lede should be named references to citations elsewhere in the article." The downside is that these will not be in numerical order of appearance, but that's a nit.LeadSongDog come howl 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a relatively minor problem that can be fixed with an additional tool. It may even be possible right now using a direct link to the section. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You can cite a section of the article like this: *. This example directs to the section Why isn't this RfC appearing in the list? Fences and windows (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent method. I have tried it at my coming article Alternative medicine critics, and it works great. It looks much more simple than having multiple refs after each significant word, phrase, or sentence. I have used this format: ^{[[#Sources_of_criticism|#]]}, which seems to work just fine. So it's already possible using simple HTML, but a tool would be nice. There are already a number of codes at the bottom of the editing window, and one more could be added. BTW, I'm aware that the lead there doesn't currently conform totally to the usual rules. It will need to be tweaked before releasing the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The simple way around lots of links in the lead is to combine refs between one set of ref tags at the end of the sentence or paragraph. But we can't have an exception in WP:V for leads: the policy is that all edits that are challenged or likely to be challenged,and all quotations, need a reference. This guideline can't override the policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE, "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material".
WP:V, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
This info box at the top of every guideline is so familiar that you might not read it! {{policy|WP:V|WP:VERIFY|WP:SOURCE}} If there is a clash between guidelines, then use common sense "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule". If the lead becomes unreadable because of citations then leave them out. I agree with the bringer of RfC, the source of the lead is the article. Another way. The lead implicitly cites the body of the article as it's source. Another way. Wikipedia demands that the lead only includes important information from the body, therefore, by design, the source for the lead is the body of the article - important bits in the body of the article would need citations. All claims which require citations will be in the article, the lead can therefore use the article body as source. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a sentence to the effect that the lead is using the article body as source because the article body cites good quality sources. That's a claim which covers the lead source, and transfers the citation burden to the body - where it's going to be anyway :) HarryAlffa (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I've been bold and tried to clarify the competing concerns. [10] Thoughts? Rd232 ^talk 14:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

NB my edit addresses current practice, not the new idea of linking from lead to body, which I think is a bit confusing, and anyway would need wider discussion than this MOS talk page. Rd232 ^talk 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't this RfC appearing in the list?

Will someone please figure out what's wrong? See my request here. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I had exactly the same problem a couple of weeks ago. It's best to add RfCs manually, I find. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)