Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Manual of Style. 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 5

←

Archive 7

→

Who's on first?

I recently moved a bit of text regarding bolding the article title when it is repeated in the opening sentence from this article to wp:Writing better articles. At the same time, I added a "for further details" link from this article to wp:Writing better articles. Someone who shall remain nameless (SandyGeorgia) reverted, suggesting that the Writing better articles article should point to Lead section rather than vice versa. I have no problem with that provided no one has any objection to me doing a wholesale import to Lead section of the "bolding" text at wp:Writing better articles#First sentence. (Yes, I know the bolding text is a mess. Once it is either here or there we can clean it up.) So, does anyone object? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Butwhat, I meant to get here to talk and leave a message, and hadn't made it yet. This entire territory (of transcluding text, main and other links, and what page refers to where) needs to be better defined and sorted at the WikiProject level. For example, I've almost never seen anyone at FAC (the only place by the way where style guidelines are enforced, which is why I often refer to it) refer to the Better writing artile, while this page is viewed as the primary stomping grounds about the lead. I just want us to be careful and aware of the bigger picture issues, and attempt to sort this on a global level before moving text out. The bolding of text is mentioned on several pages, as we've discussed at WP:MOSCO and we need to sort that globally before moving stuff around. More importantly, we need a proces for how these issues are sorted. I was just concerned that your edit seemed to elevate the better article writing page above this one, and want to make sure we sort how to sort such issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your comment that "...we need to sort that globally before moving stuff around." While a resurfaced road is always better than a patched road, that doesn't mean we should leave the potholes unpatched while we plan the resurfacing. If and when we arrive at a global solution we can stop patching. Meanwhile, I don't see the harm in improving what can be improved with the available tools (with the understanding that a much better solution will be implemented at some point in the future). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I don't think the edit accomplished that. LEAD and LAYOUT were historically two rather self-contained, well-written, stand-alone, oft-cited, comprehensive main guideline pages. The Better writing page is, well, something less. By moving text out of this page we start to lose that. (Thanks for fixing the earlier edit.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

With that in mind I will, unless there is opposition, move the bold title discussion from Writing better articles to the Lead section article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Input requested

Another editor and I have gotten into a dispute about how to interpret and apply WP:LEAD at the pioneer article. I started a talk page discussion at Talk:Pioneer#Lead section. Input from interested parties and editors with experience in this area is welcome. --Muchness (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Giving example of what not to do

In reviewing new articles I frequently encounter introductions that begin, "Malcolm Stottlegreeb was born September 9, 1973, in Kenblink, Alberta to Mildred and Stanley Stottlegreeb. In school, art class was his favorite class. He was always bringing home cool stuff he found outside and pasting it onto pieces of posterboard. He started selling his works. Soon galleries and museums started displaying his work." The impression this gives is that Stottlegreeb was famous for having been born in Kenblink, Alberta, and the rest is subsdiary information. Of course, the story should begin, "Malcolm Stottlegreeb is an artist whose collages of found objects have been displayed in many galleries and museums." Would an example like this in the article make it clear? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

LP, my first reaction is that I really like your idea, and I think I will support you on it. I'd advise you to be bold and go ahead and do it. But I must say, I think you're likely to meet a lot of resistance. Mentioning both the birth year and birth place is something that thousands upon thousands of bio articles share. And sometimes, the birth place is probably important for one reason or another. But you're also probably right that by placing it up front we give it more weight than necessary, when all we have to do is mention the birthplace later in the article, when discussing the chronology of his life. Anyway, I'm just not sure you'll obtain consensus, but go ahead and give it a try. Unschool (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The first few sentences need to define who you're talking about in the article. Many times people with the same name are distinguished easily by their birthdate, and then it's perfectly OK to include it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). (I am in the process of trying to centralize and clean up the first sentence section text in this article (and at least two others) and will eventually be including a link to the biographies article here.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the title of this section back to what I named it in the first place, since the basis for the issue I raised was not that people create articles that mention someone's birth information in the first sentence, but that they don't explain what the topic is in the first sentence, to the extent that the reader may be left reading several lines of background information without having first been given a basis for deciding that the article is even of interest. I have no problem with "Malcolm Stottlegreeb, an artist known for his collages of found objects, was born ...." Anyway, my proposal was to add an example like this to this project page to clarify the importance of getting the key information up front. I would just do it, but I checked the guidelines, which said to get consensus before making changes. I'll wait a little while longer and then do it. So far no one seems opposed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I say "have at it!" And I add: Please consider placing that information in at 3.2.1. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably removing the 1.0 stuff after discussions later this month

I think it's likely that the reference to the plan in 1.0 to contain only the lead of some articles will be gone before the November updates. 1.0 folks have put that conversation on hold until after the Oct 20 deadline, but I've registered my disapproval. The lead section isn't just a summary, it's a thesis statement, full of vague statements whose details are filled in by the article, and falsifiable statements that are proved (or not!) in the article. Take away the rest of the article, and, in general, what you've got left are a bunch of sentences of the kind that policy and guidelines warn us not to make ... vague and unsubstantiated. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I brought up the discussion at WT:1.0, and I believe I answered the objections. Does anyone here want to keep that sentence? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Wolfkeeper's talk page

Kudos on adding the good definition policy from WP:NOT ... a nice touch. But how in the world does this 3-year-old, uncategorized, long-ignored page contribute to the reader's understanding of WP:LEAD?

[begin]

The define and describe rule states that:

If its subject is amenable to definition, an article should give a concise, conceptually sound definition in its opening sentence and then proceed with a description.
If the article is long (more than one page), the remainder of the opening paragraph should summarize it.

The definitions of definition and description are imperative to this rule.

See debate.

[end] - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's 3 years old doesn't mean anything. You said that it wasn't consensus, but it seems to have been consensus on its talk page, and I couldn't see anything that said otherwise.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with "Just because it's 3 years old doesn't mean anything" ... that's part of the well-established principle from WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS (that often gets under people's skin) that there are no rules on Wikipedia that allow people to ignore material ... such as, it's too old, or you didn't go through the right channels. I think we're on the same page there. But the infobox at the top of every policy and guidelines page that says not to add material unless you believe that it reflects consensus is there for a reason. If I followed your logic, and wandered through all of Wikipedia finding random uncategorized pages from years ago that seemed to have support at the time, and inserted them all into guidelines and policy pages without discussion, that wouldn't be helpful at all. What first sentences should look like is something that's been discussed a lot; what's in WP:LEAD (including See also) should reflect those discussions. I'll ask about this on the talk page at WT:LEAD. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone like to import any of the stuff from the 3-year-old page into our suggestions for first sentences? Should we link to them? If not, I'll remove the wikilink. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

some help

can somone help me write the lead or fix up the lead in the Javon Ringer article. ANY help would be appriciated. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 00:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is currently being peer reviewed, and that's the place to ask; this is a style guidelines talk page. There are suggestions for who to ask for reviewing help in the second paragraph at the top of WP:PR. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about the opening sentence

I have questions about the opening sentence, and wanted to know if some seasoned editors would give me some feedback at this link. Thanks. kilbad (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't bold foreign translations

First sentence format should say something about this. Names or spellings not used in English, translations added as paranthetical, explicatory information, and especially text in foreign writing systems and their transliterations should not be boldfaced.

Doing so places supreme emphasis on information which is incidental, and not normally accessible to many readers. It increases the intro's bold cluttering and distracts from the actual English name(s) which are required to be boldfaced. It may also decrease or completely destroy readability for foreign scripts which do not use boldfaced fonts, or for which the reader's system lacks a suitable bold font. —Michael Z. 2008-12-28 18:32 z

Agree, except that the article title should be in bold even if it's in a different language ... see the Las Meninas example at WP:LEAD#First sentence format. People will sometimes put bold in the first paragraph, not just the first sentence. What words would you like to add to WP:LEAD#First sentence format? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if the title is a loanword or a proper name from a foreign language, it is still the article title which we use in English. I'm talking about the other stuff. In looking for examples, I also realized that it's common to include inflections of the word, and they are often not boldfaced because that would be redundant.

How about the following, following the example of “common abbreviation or more than one name?”

Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations merely included to show etymology:
Chernivtsi Oblast ([Чернівецька область, Chernivets’ka oblast’] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), is an oblast (province) in western Ukraine, bordering on Romania and Moldova.
A papoose (from the Algonquian papoos, meaning "child") is an English loanword whose present meaning is "an American Indian child" (regardless of tribe).
Inuit (plural; the singular Inuk means "man" or "person") is a general term for a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic regions . . .

Let's pick one or two of the examples. Any objections? —Michael Z. 2009-01-14 20:03 z

Okay, I'll go ahead and add this to the guideline. —Michael Z. 2009-01-20 15:43 z

WP:RS needed to say obviously, frequently used synonyms are in fact synonyms?

While I couldn't find this in this article, I could swear I read last week somewhere in wiki policies that if a phrase is the main phrase used but other phrases are used frequently by WP:RS as synonyms, one can say in the Lead: "XXX YYY (also frequently called WWW YYY and ZZZ YYY) is etc..." Does anyone know where that policy explicitly is described?

Also, in problem I am having, those who do not want to admit these three terms are widely used as synonyms at all, or that dozens of sources use them synonymously, insist that they only can be used as synonyms if a specific source says they are used that way. If this is true, that would negate the use of all synonyms in lead unless some WP:RS specifically describes them as synonyms, which rarely happens, except in most academic analytical journals and books.

So clarification on these points would be helpful, here and in the article. Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish lobby" and "Israel lobby" are not synonyms, as has been explained to you over a week ago on the WP:NOR/N board. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the third article JayJg has followed me to make his person point... hmmm. Anyway...

It would be nice to discuss this in general terms since the issue of when and what kind of synonyms have to have sources is a wikipedia wide issue that I have recently become aware of and not just one on one particular article.
That editor you link to makes the point that while Zionist Lobby and Israel lobby are synonymous, Jewish Lobby is not always synonymous with the other two. However, while I agree 100% that is true, the fact is all sorts of reliable sources, including Jewish publications, conflate Jewish and Israel lobbies all the time. And it's wikipedia's job to describe things as they are, not as we want them to be because it may be good for our particular POV. That is the whole point of WP:NAME and WP:NAMING CONFLICT, as I have just discovered. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong department; this is a style guideline, and (when we're careful) style guidelines are not the place to discuss NPOV issues. All we can say here is that bolding is used for alternate names; WP:NORN and WP:NPOVN are places to ask which alternate names might be suitable. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tips. I am asking the question in general terms for good of this article because I've noticed general issue in a couple pages. And your tips on how to resolve these issues would be good in any entry about the general issue. Hopefully the other individual who inappropriately brought up a specific issue will be glad to learn where he can bring his specific issues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bold faced usage in lead sentence

I was looking at this edit by this anon (obviously an experienced editor) and I nearly reverted, thinking that he or she was mistaken. But I went to the MOS link he provided, and it does say what he says it says. My question is, is this what we want?

The purpose of the policy stating that for some articles the subject need not be boldfaced is to avoid the creation of awkwardly written sentences which are twisted simply for the purpose of being able to include the verbatim text of the article title and to thereby be able to boldface the same. _{(Wow, that sentence was a mouthful. But I think it says what I mean it to say.)} And indeed, I'm sure that before this policy was in place, this sometimes led to some real ugly opening sentences. So I have no problem with the intent. But sometimes, there is simply no problem. Sometimes, maybe oftentimes, these topics whose article title is a more complex phrase can neatly fit into a tight sentence.

All I am suggesting is that we move from this:

However, if the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface.

to this:

However, if the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim, and if it does appear, it is not required to be in boldface.

I think that this preserves the option of including the boldface usage where it is convenient to do so. Does this make sense? Un school 00:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Need guideline as to what best for dispute resolution??

Especially which notice board, or should that be decided on case by case basis, depending on issue. A reminder and link to dispute resolution in the article is always a good idea in any case. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll second the reminder/link idea. I've found the path to dispute resolution to be a bit of a zoo. ENeville (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bold title, etc

Formerly, there was material on the initial bold title, with example text and I'm not sure how much else. Has it been relocated? Was there consensus on removing it? Otherwise, I'm inclined to reinsert it. ENeville (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's been reworked into things under Format of the first sentence. I did update WP:BOLDTITLE forwarding (FWIW). Not sure how much else should be updated. ENeville (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Information structuring

Would like to add text to WP:LEAD about information structuring as it is relevant to leads (and only leads). It is merely a summary of info in the Format of the first sentence section, but I think it needs more emphasis.
Look at a current FAC, William D. Boyce. Sure it's well-written etc. I have a problem with the lead, and i have seen this time and again, systemically across Wikipedia. i think it detracts fromn the value that our encyclopedia offers to the reader. Here's a snippet:

William Dickson "W. D." Boyce (June 16, 1858 – June 11, 1929), was an American newspaper man, entrepreneur, magazine publisher, and explorer. Born in Plum Township, Pennsylvania, he acquired a love for the outdoors early...

and so on and so forth, following the structure of the article. Under this method of information structuring, an extremely key fact is withheld for two paragraphs, namely:

Boyce is best known today for founding the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and the Lone Scouts of America (LSA).

I won't rant about the attention span of the modern reader, though I probably should ;-). But I think it is a disservice to our readers to withhold the main source of notability of an individual until that far down in the lead. It should be in the first, or at most the second sentence each and every single time. In fact, we should make that an explicit part of this style guideline. Some people might argue that the text "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." actually accomplishes my goal, but I would suggest that the current wording is too general to suggest "information structuring" as a source of emphasis. I suggest simply adding the following immediately after the sentence I just quoted:

The main source of the topic's notability should be established in the first sentence of the lead.

Yes, that point is made in the "first sentence" section. But this style guideline needs to lend more emphasis that fact. <Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, I completely agree with your sentiments. But I think that the current language of WP:LEAD already gives you the power/authority/right (whatever you call it) to make the change. Read the following, which is already part of the guideline:

The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?

That second part is supposed to be in the first sentence as well, and that Boyce's founding of the BSA is not mentioned in the opening sentence is why it fails (and why I have already changed it—let me know what you think of it now). Un school 06:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Synonym format

Synonyms are important first order data, the existence and instances of which one often wants to determine early and quickly while researching. Unfortunately, numerous synonyms can become ungainly in the lede, clogging the first sentence and/or running together in an extended sequence of bold words that weighs on the eye. Alternatively, if synonyms are not bolded, it becomes harder to find this crucial data, especially if not located in an expected spot. I suggest a format in which synonyms beyond a certain quantity (say, three total) are listed at the end of the lede, behind the word "Synonyms" in bold, e.g.:

Guizotia abyssinica is an erect, stout, branched annual herb, grown for its edible oil and seed. Its cultivation originated in the Ethiopian highlands, and has spread to other parts of Ethiopia. Synonyms: noog (Ethio-Semitic ኑግ nūg); niger, nyjer, or niger seed; ramtil or ramtilla; inga seed; blackseed.

Compare to Guizotia abyssinica, or Matthew Herbert. These may not be the most dramatic examples, but I have run across many and worse cases in the course of time. Thoughts? ENeville (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of other languages in opening

I occasionally run across articles which open like this one:

Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) is a plant in the family Fabaceae. It is commonly known as Maithray (Gujarati), Methi (Oriya, Bangla), Methi or Mithi (Hindi , Assamese, Nepali, Marathi मेथी, and Urdu ميتهي , from the Sanskrit मेथिका), Menthyada soppu (ಮೆಂತ್ಯ) (Kannada), Ventayam (வெந்தயம்) (Tamil), Menthulu(మెంతులు) (Telugu), Çemen (Turkish), Hilbeh (حلبة Arabic, חילבהHebrew), or ulluva (ഉലുവ Malayalam)، shambalîleh (شنبليله Persian). Fenugreek is used both as an herb (the leaves) and as a spice (the seed). It is cultivated worldwide as a semi-arid crop. It is frequently used in curry.

Now I don't want to come across as an English xenophobe, but this seems to me to be rather ridiculous. I mean, in an article where it is about, say, a Czech politician, I think it makes perfect sense to parenthetically provide a Czech spelling of the person's name. But this is altogether different. I would think that only one alternative name be provided, maybe two in an extreme case (such as someone with a Serbo-Croatian name which might be spelled both with Latin and Cyrilic alphabets). Anyway, I believe these ten additional names provide a distraction more than anything else. I mean, with the extra names, there are 511 characters, without there are only 188 characters. This means that 63% of the opening paragraph is dedicated to giving the names of the plant in other languages. Is this sensible? Un school 05:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Too many. Cut them out. Move them elsewhere in the article if possible, but if not then mourn not their loss. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

They don't need to go anywhere. WP:ENGLISH basically says that foreign names for subjects need be given if the subject has its own foreign nationality. I'd take that so far as to imply that where there is no definite foreign nationality than only the English term need be given at all. For flora and fauna and I'd go with latin and English and nuke the rest from orbit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also,

WP:MOS#Foreign terms, "Foreign words should be used sparingly.", (see also Wikipedia:Interlanguage links.)."
WP:LEDE#Format of the first sentence, "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 [...]. [...] 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 [...] ."

Perhaps something like this:

Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) is a plant in the family Fabaceae.^[1] Fenugreek is used both as an herb (the leaves) and as a spice (the seed). It is cultivated worldwide as a semi-arid crop. It is frequently used in curry.

... with footnote [1], expanded by <References /> or {{reflist}}, reading something like the following:

1. ^{^} Common names for Fenugreek in languages other than English include The following:
Maithray (Gujarati), Methi (Oriya, Bangla), Methi or Mithi (Hindi , Assamese, Nepali, Marathi मेथी, and Urdu ميتهي , from the Sanskrit मेथिका), Menthyada soppu (ಮೆಂತ್ಯ) (Kannada), Ventayam (வெந்தயம்) (Tamil), Menthulu(మెంతులు) (Telugu), Çemen (Turkish), Hilbeh (حلبة Arabic, חילבהHebrew), or ulluva (ഉലുവ Malayalam)، shambalîleh (شنبليله Persian).

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The inro and its first sentence should glide a person into the article. Stuffing too much translation, transliteration, etymology and pronunciation causes it to fail. Quite frankly I'm surprised this even has to be discussed. Please people, think. Unschool, you are absolutely right. TungstenCarbide (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of us agree with TC's point about the "glide" into the article, but some might bemoan the loss of information, if we use WP:UE as a blunt instrument such as Chris proposes. Even people who agree with Chris's sentiment to "nuke the rest" might realize that we can perhaps find a compromise here. I think that maybe Ling.Nut is onto something. What about adding a small section, at or near the bottom, near the references, for foreign names? In the lede we adhere strictly to the policy noted by Chris, but have a link to the section below with other names. Now I don't think that WP:UE requires this, but it would be in line with providing information to the reader. And ech foreign name could or should have a redirect coming to this article. I'm typing this without even pausing to think about it, so maybe I'm way off base, but what say you? Un school 20:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to lose any information, it simply needs to be repackaged in any of a dozen ways (although in some cases it might make sense to move to Wictionary). Some of the things I've seen in the first sentence include pronunciations, translations, transliteration, etymology and countries common name plus official name. All of this metadata (for lack of a better word) should be limited to the bare necessity, like pronunciation (when needed) and country's official name. Everything else needs to be set aside, put in an info box, moved to Wictionary, put in a collapsible box (like Wictionary does for translations), put into a reference and so on. We have all these wonderful tools for slick formatting. There is no excuse for unreadable introductions. I took a stab at it here. I have every confidence that that edit improved the article, and that it can be further improved. TungstenCarbide (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm definitely with you; I think we need to be as reader-friendly as possible. But we need to have some concrete ideas for the "slick formatting". An infobox had never occured to me. I'm personally incapable of creating one, but I find the idea appealing. We would need to create such a box, and then figure out (through WP:CONSENSUS) where it would best serve the reader.

It is ironic that the Wiktionary entries are often more readable than our ledes. Un school 22:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the "Toponym" section and scrunched it around to attempt to reflect the concerns expressed by editors in this section. Any thoughts? Un school 03:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done some copy-editing on your work. Please note that it is not a generally accepted practice on Wikipedia to make internal links to different sections in the same article. That's what the Table of Contents serves to do. Consider that we don't have internal links elsewhere in the lead section to link to other aspects of the topic that are mentioned in the lead. Because of this, I've removed that part of your new text altogether. Warren -talk- 04:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Warren, I hadn't really known that about the linking within the article. I appreciate you fixing that issue. And I find it desireable to have someone check up on my spelling. Again, thanks. Un school 04:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is the primary core value here is that the wikipedia isn't a dictionary. By including a bunch of foreign words, you're trying to make it one. Your trying to make it a foreign language translation dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't work.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason it doesn't work, is that in general, foreign words don't have a one-one mapping onto English words. That means you would have to define the foreign word somewhere otherwise the meaning will often be a bit off if you ever tried to use it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

But that's defining a term, and a foreign term at that, and the wikipedia isn't a terminology guide either, and article names are always in English. Really, this kind of thing is exactly in what the wiktionary is for- they include definitions of foreign words in English and have links between synonymous words, including foreign ones. That's exactly what it's for; and the wikipedia is not.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)