Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Is this guideline under the right article name

A lede is a term primarily from journalism, and is usually just a paragraph or just a very few sentences, but an introduction is very typically a whole distinct section. Isn't this guideline really on article introductions? Given this, shouldn't we really move it to WP:Article introduction?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous edit 72.196.30.196

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Lead_section&oldid=189991436

Somebody just made an anonymous edit, it actually seems to me reasonable, but I've temporarily reverted it, do we have consensus that that edit should be made?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That the lead should contain a definition is policy

From Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary it states:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Dictionary definitions. Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also acceptable.

And Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Good_definitions states that:

"A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term." (Definition)

A good definition is not circular, a one-word synonym or a near synonym, over broad or over narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure. See also Fallacies of definition.

- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a policy requirement in there but an explanatory aside. Duplicating the material here in this guideline is unnecessary and just dilutes the meaning here. Wikidemo (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You can't continue to pull this garbage, it just doesn't fly. You've repeatedly removed my edits, which are completely in line with consensus policy, as well as even references to consensus policy. This guideline now doesn't reflect these very, very, very well established policies in any way. If you don't believe in these policies you need to bring them up on that applicable page, not attempt to edit them out of the guideline. You don't have a leg to stand on.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll give you a warning here on WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. You've been actively trying to modify this page, making more than half of all the page edits for the past month or so, and you seem to be taking it personally. I've reverted you a grand total of twice now, two weeks apart, for a couple of your less useful contributions. Please take a Wikibreak before this ends up on WP:AN/I. Wikidemo (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The other way around is true also, you and some other admins here have been desperately editing this guideline for a month to maintain a non consensus policy position. Odd that, the nice thing about the wikipedia, is that it's a giant database, and I checked back, and this non consensus editing by admins has been going on here for quite a while, with other editors also; so this isn't all about me. Odd that also.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've made four edits to this guideline page, ever. That's not desperate. As to your main point, you are arguing argument that the content of this guideline as edited by many different people is non-consensus because it contradicts your own interpretation of what policy is. That's kind of backwards. I would give it a rest. Wikidemo (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What is in the guideline that is contra-policy? Nothing that I see. And there is consensus—you're the only one, Wolfkeeper, who's upset with it. Your addition is largely redundant with what we have. Marskell (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In no way. And you're only making it worse for yourselves. The wikipedia contains extremely detailed records of what has been in the guideline, and what you have removed (i.e. all the policy). And even if you continue to remove it from here, it's still in the policy, and it's very, very, very old policy, and very, very good consensus, so any attempt to remove this from the wikipedia in general, and here in particular can't succeed. What you're doing here is futile; and because of the detailed nature of the wikipedia database, it can only turn back on you- most people will not agree.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you're saying, Wolfkeeper. This guideline contains no policy violations. You almost seem to be suggesting that it asks us to not define the topic. But of course it doesn't. It says "The first paragraph needs to unambiguously identify the topic for the reader. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it"—i.e., define it. What you added was redundant with this. If you want to change the verb "identify" to "define," feel free. But you have not articulated any serious problem with the wording. Marskell (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
So you're seriously claiming that a single sentence adequately covers multiple paragraphs of policy?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
And it seems to me that the edits by the admins here over the last month is consistent with systematically removing statements of policy. Why is that? Perhaps you would care to explain? They were all just coincidentally bad English were they. Odd that, don't you think?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Wolfkeeper, I really don't know what to say or do. You're not describing, in any concrete way, why this guideline violates policy. Marskell (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you haven't answered my question. The guideline, as with the wikipedia is supposed to follow policy, it doesn't. Why not?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why it doesn't follow policy. Marskell (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps he/she doesn't understand the difference between "should" and "must"? --WebHamster 00:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why any attempt to reference or include policy gets removed from the guideline.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that you shouldn't expect others to answer your questions when you won't answer theirs. Give a little to get a little has always worked for me. --WebHamster 01:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Purely as a technical consideration, we don't normally duplicate policy statements on guideline or policy pages because this is redundant and creates a content fork. That in turn can cause the two pages to diverge over time, confusion over which is the real source, and a few other problems probably that I cannot remember. Guidelines are things that add on top of policies, not recitations of policies from elsewhere. For other reasons we generally don't use citation / footnote format to refer to policies, but wikilinks or a template:see-type template. The other issue, though, is that the WP#NOT family of policy pages just doesn't seem to be all that relevant to this guideline. They are about completely different subjects than the layout style for articles. Similarly, when a policy page attempts to define the word "definition", and links to the definition article, it's incorrect to read that as a policy provision that whenever the word is used in a guideline project-wide that particular definition applies.Wikidemo (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

we don't normally duplicate policy statements on guideline or policy pages because this is redundant and creates a content fork
sounds like a guideline to me, where's that guideline written then? If you don't have a guideline, then I propose an alternate guideline that we at least reference the relevant policy- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It's just an observation. Without any guideline on the subject of what policy and guideline pages should look like, there is nothing other than consensus. I tried to create such a guideline once ( here) but it was quickly shot down as WP:CREEP. It would be nice if policy and guideline pages could be written in a consistent fashion. There may be essays on the subject. I don't know. Wikidemo (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The other issue, though, is that the WP#NOT family of policy pages just doesn't seem to be all that relevant to this guideline. They are about completely different subjects than the layout style for articles.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but WP:LEAD mostly doesn't read anything like a layout guideline, it reads like a content guideline, and it reads like content policy in Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, when a policy page attempts to define the word "definition", and links to the definition article, it's incorrect to read that as a policy provision that whenever the word is used in a guideline project-wide that particular definition applies
an interesting theory, but why is it there, in the policy page, rather than just wikilinking out. The reason is IMHO probably because the people that wrote it didn't want other people redefining what the lead must contain; it's a really, really bad idea to link out from policy pages to pages that can change at any time for anything important.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It's all very odd and indirect. The part of Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary you've cited is quite recent, and intended to be a summary of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which in turn tries to define the word "definition." That section seems out of place - it's not clear why the "Good definitions" section is in that policy page at all because no other part of that page is about definitions (other than saying we avoid them).Wikidemo (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The part of Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary you've cited is quite recent This turns out not to be the case at all: [1] "an article can and should always begin with a good definition", that was in 2002!- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it was within the past few month that the present version of that section arose. Anyway, I don't see that as a controlling statement of what a lead should look like. Wikidemo (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Could you explain how the 'article can and should always begin with a good definition' which is word for word from 2002, and is still consensus policy, doesn't refer to the lead?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the verb: "identify" --> "define". I have no idea what we're doing here. A simple question was asked: how does this guideline violate policy? No answer has been given. Marskell (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the verb: "identify" --> "define". Fair enough.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Facts in lead not repeated in article

Is there any policy/guideline on including information in the lead which doesn't appear anywhere else in the article? --jwandersTalk 06:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This guideline states: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." Marskell (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
One point, I think, is to allow a reader to choose between scanning the lead and reading the full article. Some leads are mini-articles in their own right, and it seems unnecessary to make people read both the lead and the entire article - which they would have to do if the content in the lead starts to fork off and diverge from the rest of the article. Another thing that happens with a fork is that contradictions arise. Wikidemo (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentences in articles that are part of a series: Uniformatting vs. Significance

If I am successful, I will not reveal my side in this dispute, but regardless, I am interested in others' viewpoints.

I recently became engaged in a discussion on opening sentences in articles that are naturally part of a series of articles. To illustrate my point, consider the articles written on each American Presidential election. As we see it, there are two ways to approach the leads of these articles:

Type 1. One way is to format them all uniformly, as follows:

  • The 1932 US Presidential election was between the Republican Herbert Hoover and the Democrat Franklin Roosevelt; Roosevelt won.
  • The 1940 US Presidential election was between the Republican Wendell Wilkie and the Democrat Franklin Roosevelt; Roosevelt won.
  • The 1944 US Presidential election was between the Republican Thomas Dewey and the Democrat Franklin Roosevelt; Roosevelt won.
  • The 1948 US Presidential election was between the Republican Thomas Dewey and the Democrat Harry Truman; Truman won.

Type 2. The other way is to format them with an attempt to provide recognition to whatever (if anything) makes that event in the series unique or somehow significant.

  • The 1932 US Presidential election was held in the midst of the greatest economic crisis in American history, the Great Depression.
  • The 1940 US Presidential election, held while much of the world was at war, was the first in which an American president won a third term to that office.
  • The 1944 US Presidential election was held while the United States was deeply engaged in World War II; in that election, Franklin Roosevelt won an unprecedented fourth term.
  • The 1948 US Presidential election is regarded by most historians as the greatest upset in American political history, as President Harry Truman defeated New York Governor Thomas Dewey.

Arguments

For Type 1

  • Preserves POV. Just the facts.
  • Helps the reader because as he moves from one article to another he knows what to expect, will find the information easily.

Against Type 1

  • Fails to provide context. The reader should know, for example, that what is memorable to most people about the 1948 race is its surprise ending. Or in an article on Richard Nixon (not his elections), for example, the reader should immediately learn that what is unique about his presidency is that he was the only president to ever resign.
  • It's boring.

For Type 2

  • Good expository writing generally requires the writer to start out with his most significant points. We are not writing novels with surprise endings.
  • It helps the reader because he is more likely to quickly identify if this is the article he is looking for.

Against Type 2

  • It's not NPOV. Who is to say that Nixon's resignation should be the first thing the reader learns about him? Why not instead mention his trip opening up China, or his incredible political comeback in 1968?
  • Articles should be uniform to eliminate disputes over style. While many subjects have infoboxes that lend uniformity to their information, many others do not. If every article is written with an opening cloned from other, related, articles, we can better concentrate on the content of said articles.
  • Some articles in the series may not have anything special about them. Sure, it's easy to mention unique things about Jefferson, Lincoln, & Nixon, but what about Pierce, Fillmore, and Hayes?


This topic affects literally thousands of articles. Articles on presidential elections, presidents themselves, monarchs, sports teams, cities, et cetera (almost literally). I've never seen it discussed before, but then again, I don't hang out on policy pages. I'd be very interested in all points of view. Unschool (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Replies and comments

Type 1 is absurdly stupid. Good writing triumph uniformity for the sake of uniformity.--165.21.154.91 (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You are using an IP address that has been associated with vandalism in the past. I strongly suggest that you create a user name if you want your comments to be given due consideration. Unschool (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Type 2. We're not robots, and the first sentence should grab the reader as much as possible. Marskell (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionably applicable to short articles

The advice in this guideline is not really appropriate for short articles. I don't mean stubs, which often consist of nothing but a lead, I mean articles of the size of Kelly pool. The entire article can be read (by a fluent and literate English speaker) in a matter of maybe 2-3 minutes. A lead as described by WP:LEAD would simply be redundant and annoying. The one that is there presently is already redundant and annoying, yet Kelly pool's WP:GA bid has been derailed because it doesn't adhere to WP:LEAD. It is unlikely that the article in question is ever going to be much longer than it already is, because so far as the major editors of it can determine, there simply isn't any more published material on which to draw for sources. What can be said has been said. So, adhering to WP:LEAD's "stand-alone summary" advice with regard to an article of this length is rather pointless. I think WP:LEAD needs revision to account for this. For short articles, the lead needs to be a highly compact precis of only the most salient points, without getting into details. In particular, the squishing of all alternate terminology into the lead, where almost all of that terminology is obsolete and rare, is completely pointless. For this case in question, something like:

Kelly pool is a pocket billiards game (long associated with gambling) with numerous variations, played on a standard pool table using 15 numbered markers and a standard set of 16 pool balls. An early version of the game, kelly rotation, is the origin of the common expression "behind the eight ball".

would be entirely sufficient (with some corresponding adjustments to the main prose). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than continuing to tweak the guideline to accommodate all the possibilities, I'd prefer to see a statement along the lines of the anon's suggestion in the section above -- that good writing triumphs over uniformity for its own sake, and that the advice in this guideline should be approached with common sense and good editorial judgment. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it seems that in this case, the way that WP:LEAD is written is making achieving GA harder. I'm glad to be able to tell you that WP:LEAD is written in this way for a good reason.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In practice, articles that reach GA or FA follow the policy and Good definitions, not necessarily lead, and in case of disagreements between the two, policy takes precedent.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just write the lead the way it says. I've done it for shorter GAs than that, even, such as Robin Starveling. Wrad (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ya, taken in sum, I don't think the guideline provides bad directions for short articles. The lead should summarize the article, but the size of the lead should be appropriate to the size of the article. A short article will have a short summary. Marskell (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology in a box?

The word etymology [...] comes from the Ancient Greek ἐτυμολογία (etumologia) < ἔτυμον (etumon), “‘true sense’” + -λογία (-logia), “‘study of’”, from λόγος (logos), "speech, oration, discourse, word".

In many articles, e.g. Ethics, the etymology in brackets in the lead sentence is distracting from what the lead needs to do. Any support for moving etymology into a right aligned box if there is no dedicated section for it? -- Jeandré, 2008-03-02t10:47z

Absolutely, but in fact I see no mention of a need for etymology being in the lead in the guideline here. It could just as easily be in the body, depending on the article. You bring up a good point though, regarding parenthetical information in the lead. There are many cases where this trend for parenthetical naming disrupts the lead, is against the spirit of this rather elegant, extremely functional guideline, and puts off the reader. One article as Wikipedia is now will have English, Arabic, French, and Berber, with IPA guides beside each. Another will have English, simplified Chinese, traditional Chinese, pinyin and Wade-Giles, potentially with IPA guides beside each. In cases where parenthetical information would be excessively lengthy, editors should be free to decide to place that information in a box or better still a footnote beside the first mention of the article name.
Having read through the IPA talk page archives, and the Chinese names MoS likewise, and a few others, it seems the initial drive for including the information in brackets after the initial subject mention came purely and somewhat reflexively from looking at dictionary practice, where of course there are no leads and which we rather famously are not. A survey of encyclopedias shows that some use no parenthetical information at all after the initial mention of the subject, some use IPA, yet some others use wade-giles, some use footnotes etc. Finding an encyclopedia which uses more than two instances of parenthetical information is difficult. And limited though the usage is even there, I would contend that such usage suits print far better than hypertext (do people still say hypertext?) 86.44.6.14 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of having it in a box. It could be mentioned here as an option. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
1st draft. -- Jeandré, 2008-03-06t13:06z
How about "can be used ... rather than parenthesis"? We don't need standardization in this area, do we? This way editors can decide which works best. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about alternate spellings

I am editing the Dysmenorrhea article, and I would like to know if there is a policy which delineates how to go about including alternate spellings of a word in the title, in the article's initial sentence. Dysmenorrhea is spelled dysmenorrhoea in British English, but I am not sure how much detail as to the reasons for the different spellings should be included in the article. Is it enough to simply place it in parentheses? Or should a notice be given as to the reason for the other spelling? Thank you for your assistance. 98.217.45.69 (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's probably enough to just put the other spelling in parentheses, or set off by commas. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Carl. 98.217.45.69 (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
See WP:LEAD (on bolding, etc.) and Coeliac disease. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert

I just tidied the writing in one sentence in the lead, and was reverted by Wolfkeeper. WK, can you say why? SlimVirgin talk|edits 16:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I disagreed with it, and further I disagreed that it was, in any way, a minor edit. You were self-evidently trying to remove agreed on material surreptitiously, and your edit changed both the emphasis as well as the facts of the paragraph.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
What was the material being removed surreptitiously? It was evidently so surreptitious that I didn't notice it myself. :) What I was trying to do was slightly improve the writing, which isn't very good e.g. "The lead serves a dual role as both ...": "The lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." SlimVirgin talk|edits 17:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to say why you were making significant edits with the minor edit flag set? This does not seem to have been an accident.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it was not an accident. It was a minor edit. SlimVirgin talk|edits 17:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You were self-evidently trying to remove agreed on material under a minor edit. Arbcom generally takes a dim view of this kind of thing, and you are an admin.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to fix the sentence again, so please tell me what the "agreed on material" is, and where it was agreed, so I know not to touch it (even surreptitiously). SlimVirgin talk|edits 17:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've got a better idea. How about you don't 'fix' it? And I don't raise a fuss with arbcom over this and other issues about how this article differs from the policies?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This is typical of Wolfkeeper: you ask a direct question, and get a complete deflection. My advice: don't worry about it. Geometry guy 20:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Leading the way- what the "lead" policy should say.

Is there really any point in a lead that repeats the same points already made? users seem to think that just because something is "wiki policy" it is correct. A lead is a good thing providing it adds something new to an article, but if it is repeating information for the sake of it, you have to question the point of it. Shouldn't the lead policy be, that a lead is only added to a page if it is providing new information? as opposed to simply repeating information on a similar page? And wouldn't it be better to state "more information can be found at..." in replace of repetition?

You know it makes sense, so let's build up a consensus a change this illogical policy. Edito*Magica (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. The Lead is a summary of the article, a synopsis of the full piece. Its like the abstract of any academic paper or journal entry, and the leading paragraphs of any lengthy non-fictional writing. Almost all do not just "add new information" they summarize what the reader will be reading, and for those who don't want to read the whole article, it gives them the overview and highlights. Lead is fine just the way it is. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by 'new information', but if you mean it shouldn't summarize the rest of the article I completely disagree as per AnmaFinotera. If it had new information it wouldn't be a lead, it would just be the beginning of an article, and the reader who didn't want to have to read the whole thing would be up the creek without a paddle. Richard001 (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Something like: "this is a list of episodes, each with a synopsis, for the British television sitcom Keeping Up Appearances. The showed first aired between 1990 and 1995; for further information click: Keeping Up Appearances", is far better than repeating the same thing twice. It is good to summarise an article, but not twice, and for somebody who has visited the main page and then for example an episode page with the same paragraphs they've just read, it's very tedious for them. Edito*Magica (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Um no. The episode list is also considered a stand alone article. Look at any featured article and featured list related to it. They have repeating information. Many related articles will. Summary Style doesn't mean only one article has any one piece of information, we include the pertinant information in both. I really wish you would stop trying to go against consensus and what has already been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors, though I thank you for at least just discussing instead of starting yet another edit war. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If an article actually started with "this is a list of episodes, each with a synopsis, for the British television sitcom Keeping Up Appearances. The showed first aired between 1990 and 1995; for further information click: Keeping Up Appearances", it would be a pretty lousy lead. For one thing, it should never say "click" (that would be a self reference), though I imagine this is just your version of what it might look like. If you want to give an actual example please use an [[internal link]]. Richard001 (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Length of lead - the problem of paragraphs

I don't like the 'length' being given in paragraphs. Paragraphs can be one sentence long or ten. An amount in kilobytes would be more useful as an indicator of length, if perhaps slightly harder to judge. We could give both, but point out the problem with paragraphs and then give a kilobyte amount as well. I don't like the idea of someone splitting a paragraph into two to make the lead 'longer'.

Perhaps a ratio of the article's length (without references etc - the main body) to that of the lead would be a good idea as well. It's basically a linear relationship (although for very large articles a maximum amount or 'leveling off' might be desirable?) Richard001 (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Version 1.0

copied from Walkerma's talk page, with permission:

WP:Lead has a sentence that is over 1 year old: "For the planned Wikipedia 1.0 — a static version of Wikipedia distributed on CD, DVD, or paper — one recommendation, not currently implemented, is that the articles will consist of just the lead section of the web version. Summary style and news style can help create a concise intro that works as a stand-alone article." That sentence is a bit surprising; I'm wondering if it's true, and if so, to which articles it would apply. (Standard disclaimer: feel free to reply here, on my page, or not at all.) - Dan (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. Although Version 0.7 will be full articles, there has been discussion on doing this. In fact, just this week someone I know started to set up a chemistry mirror using data from chem articles together with the lead paragraph from each one - see this. We could very easily produce something that could be (for example) a "Dictionary of Military History" containing leads from the articles - there are almost 40,000 such articles of Start-Class and higher, 65,000 total - and that would make a very nice release (if the quality control were done carefully).
As I see it, once we have got a reliable system for producing offline releases quickly and easily, we can start to have WikiProjects designing custom releases, and we could either have a small encyclopedia release (e.g., 3000 organic chemical compounds) or a large dictionary-type release such as the one I mentioned. Both could fit on a CD and be easily downloaded. Walkerma (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that was helpful. I'll pay more attention to leads when doing "well-written" checks! I will also, with your permission, copy your reply on the talk page of WP:LEAD. - Dan (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, by all means add it. It should be clear that we don't have any firm proposal at this point, only an intention. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The opening sentence

Is there a general consensus that generally (and I know it must only be generally—its next to impossible to have rules/policies which cover all contingencies) the opening sentence of an article should indicate noteworthiness of the subject of the article? I see some editors here (and I've just read through the entire archive of this project page) indicating that they feel that opening should either meet WP:N or at least motivate the reader to read more. But at least one editor has written that this leads to violating NPOV. What do most people here think? Unschool (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that notability should be established in the first paragraph, but it does not necessarily need to be the first sentence, if it will inhibit good prose. You'll find with a lot of biographical articles that at least one of the person's achievements or accomplishments will be put right up front; this is generally good. Take Billy Crystal for example: "William Edward “Billy” Crystal is a Golden Globe Award-nominated and Emmy Award-winning American actor, writer, producer, comedian, and film director. " ... that's basically perfect. It's succinct, hits all the important points, and mentions awards relevant to Crystal's field without engaging in superlatives or peacockery. Consider also an article like John Tesh: "John Frank Tesh is an American pianist and composer of new age and contemporary Christian music." ... this is certainly accurate, but notability isn't asserted here; we have to look at the beginning of the second sentence: "He is also a nationally syndicated radio host, ..." ... at which point we're back in the land of perfection. Sure, this could be re-written to all be in one sentence, but it might be difficult to write a sentence that can encapsulate a career that covers all the fields Tesh has been involved with. If someone can do it, great, but if nobody does it, it shouldn't be considered "wrong".
NPOV can indeed become difficult to achieve when there is a rush to assert notability at the beginning of the article, because if an editor can't find a well-accepted measurement of success like, "Nobel Prize-winning mathemetician" or "columnist for The New York Times" or even something like "best-selling author", they might end up putting in phrases like, "most popular" or "widely regarded as", which are subjective at best. -/- Warren 06:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I find your thoughts well-considered. Yet are you aware that there is a movement now to remove "Academy Award winning" from the opening sentences of relevant articles? It's happening all over the place. The argument is that doing this inserts POV into the article's opening. I myself am uncertain how I feel about this issue.
I actually broached this question because I am concerned about another issue—sterility being forced upon articles by editors who pride themselves on having the uniformity of bots. If you could, take just a moment to look at the opening sentences of the following articles: NEP01,NEP02,NEP03,NEP04,NEP05,NEP06, and NEP07. Two of the editors on these pages are arguing that only uniformity guarantees NPOV; I think it guarantees sterility. I see some uniformity as being desirable, but I see that coming from infoboxes and charts and stuff. I personally think that there's something seriously wrong with this philosophy of opening; every fiber of my being as a writer tells me that this is just horrible writing, but I want to know if anyone else sees it like this. And if it was just this one area (the articles on a sports team's seasons) I wouldn't worry too much, but I'm starting to see this creep into other teams and even some non-sports areas. I really fear that Wikipedia will become much less readable if these editorbots gain sway. Unschool (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bold title in lead for road articles

There is a debate over the lead for the article Interstate 70 in Utah. The two proposed leads are

  1. Within the U.S. state of Utah, Interstate 70 (I-70) runs east–west for 232.15 miles (373.61 km) across the central part of the state.
  2. Interstate 70 in Utah is the portion of Interstate Highway 70, commonly abbreviated I-70, that runs east–west for 232.15 miles (373.61 km) across the central part of the U.S. state of Utah.

The first is the lead before the article went to FAC and has since been restored. The second is the lead as passed at FAC. There are larger implications, as this is the first of many articles about as single state portion of a national highway to reach FA, and the precedent established here will be used for the others that are approaching (Interstate 15 in Arizona is at FAC now)

The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia_talk:USRD#FA_and_USRD if you have opinions one way or the other, please opine there. Dave (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's very unengaging and possibly irritating to our readers when they have to immediately negotiate the very same words they've just read in the title. For that reason, the second example is superior and should be encouraged.
Same issue at FLC right now. TONY (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
We may not need to repeat List of, but I see no reason why list articles should be complete exceptions to the general practice of repeating the article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This editor added the following section to the article:

How to edit

{{Shortcut|WP:LS#EDIT|WP:LS#HOWTOEDIT|WP:LEAD#EDIT|WP:LEAD#HOWTOEDIT}}

By default, the lead section has no section edit link. This can confuse new users. Here are several ways to edit the lead section in a Wikipedia article:

  • Open the entire article for editing by clicking the "edit this page" tab at the top. Cautions:
    • On very long articles, this may cause problems in some Web browsers.
    • On popular articles that receive many edits, opening the entire article for editing at once increases your chances of getting an edit conflict if another user edits and saves any section on the page before you save your changes. You may want to check the article's history to see if other users have edited it in the last few minutes.
  • If you have created an account, you can select Special:Preferences > Gadgets > User interface gadgets, and check the box: "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". This allows you to edit just the lead section, on any article, exactly as you can edit any of the other sections.
  • A somewhat more complicated method that works for all users is to click the edit link for any other section, and in the resulting URL, replace the trailing: &section=n with: &section=0.
    • For example, if you click the edit link for the first named section in an article (which should be just below the lead section, if it exists), when the edit window appears, the resulting URL should end with: &section=1. Change the 1 to 0, so the URL ends in: &section=0, and press the Enter key on your keyboard to tell your Web browser to refresh to the new URL. Then you should see the wikitext source of the lead section in the edit window.
  • There are some user-written scripts that enable you to edit section 0.

Unfortunately, the style of prose in this new content is at odds with the remainder of the article. It moves away from the paragraph-oriented approach and introduces a series of bullet points where it doesn't seem to be necessary. Also, the use of the second-person narrative which clashes with the third-person objective approach commonly used in MOS and policy documents. Generally speaking, we want to promote the same kind of prose that we expect editors will write in Wikipedia articles, which means we don't address the reader directly. For example, instead of saying, "This allows you to edit the lead section", something more like "This allows the lead section to be edited" will match the correct tone. -/- Warren 03:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and I respect consensus. If a consensus develops that we don't want the WP:LEAD page to clearly explain all the options for editing the lead section, perhaps I can relocate the material to the FAQ. In this specific instance, I edited the WP:LEAD page in response to a question on the Help desk. The Help desk gets a fair number of questions from users who don't see how to edit the lead section. In this instance of the question, the questioner seems to have read the WP:LEAD page, without learning how to edit the lead section. I checked the page and I didn't spot the instructions on my first quick glance; I had to read through the page carefully to find them. While the instructions are sort of there, it's hardly surprising that a new user wouldn't understand them. Given the frequency of confusion about how to edit the lead, I thought it would help to call attention to the instructions by giving them a section heading. As I began disambiguating the existing instructions, and extending them to include all possibilities, I decided a list format would be the easiest for new users to understand. In general, I follow the advice of usability and communication experts such as Jakob Nielsen and John Brogan (reference: Brogan, J.A. (1973). Clear technical writing. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0070079749. - it's unfortunate this book is out of print; I wish I could force everyone who writes anything I have to read, to read it).
I won't repeat all their arguments here, but I'll summarize their advice on the passive voice and lists. I used to write habitually in the passive voice, without knowing what it was, until I read John Brogan. At first I could not understand why Brogan advises against it, but after I worked through the exercises in his book, I gained an insight which, sadly, most technical people have not yet gained. I will summarize briefly here; I don't know anything about your background, so bear with me if this is all old hat (but if it is, I'd appreciate hearing how you refute Brogan).
Writing in the passive voice with missing actor introduces unnecessary ambiguity (for example: "allows the lead section to be edited" by what or whom?). The new user will not magically know who or what all the missing actors are, and thus the passive voice makes a document unnecessarily hard to understand. (The writer could, of course, specify all actors with "by..." phrases, but in practice many authors get lazy and omit some actors.) This is one reason why so many people detest reading computer manuals - because they tend to be full of verbs in the passive voice with missing actor. The reader often cannot tell whether the manual is describing some action which the computer (or another person) does (or did) for the user, or the manual is telling the user to do something. The writer who picked up the passive voice habit (often, like I did, without really understanding it) tends to be unaware of the ambiguities, because subconsciously he or she knows the identity of the missing actors and doesn't think about the other possibilities the grammar allows. The active voice eliminates this ambiguity by clarifying actors, actions, and the objects they act upon. Writing in the active voice is a healthy corrective to unclear thinking, because it forces the writer to determine all the actors.
Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, i.e., not a general respository for procedural knowledge, but that refers to the encyclopedic articles. In contrast to the articles, Wikipedia's internal project pages and help pages are one of the largest how-to guides visible to the public - they teach the world how to build the world's largest collaborative encyclopedia. Wikipedia's internal documents are different than encyclopedia articles; encylopedia articles tell the reader about things, whereas many internal documents tell the reader to do things. I subscribe to the technical writing experts who claim that the most direct and understandable way to tell the reader what to do is to use "you (understood)" (the imperative mood). Internal documents (or sections within documents) which prescribe actions for the reader need a different style than documents (or sections within documents) which describe the nature and attributes of objects, concept, people, etc. After all, this is what we do in everyday life. If we want someone to do something, we tell them what to do: "(Please) make me a sandwich." We don't (I hope we don't) create word puzzles such as "The sandwich is to be made." The latter sentence does not actually tell the hearer to do anything. An equally valid interpretation is that the sandwich is to be made by someone else. On Wikipedia, we are writing for vast numbers of strangers around the world, so if our writing allows for multiple interpretations, readers will tend to distribute themselves among all possible interpretations. If we create word puzzles, we make our message less effective - we haven't made the Internet not suck as much as we could have.
Although Wikipedia:Style of policy and guideline pages has an {{historical}} template which might mean it no longer necessarily applies, the page does say:
  • Putting rules in list format is strongly encouraged. (Ugh, more passive voice with missing actor, but I agree with the point about lists.)
In the "How to edit" section, I described four distinct ways to edit a lead section. The logical structure of the procedural branches maps visibly onto the list layout. I'm unable to imagine how a prose rendering could possibly be easier to understand. The reader has four distinct options, and the list format conveys that directly to the reader, in a way that minimizes impact on short term memory. If the same information appeared in prose, the reader would have to plow through it, and then mentally construct the equivalent list. If we wanted to be empirically rigorous, we could conduct usability tests of the type for which Jakob Nielsen charges clients $20,000/day: write instructions in various styles and formats, let experimental subjects read them, and test their comprehension.
Unfortunately, on Wikipedia we don't seem to run those kinds of usability tests. Perhaps the nearest thing we have is the Help desk. I spend a lot of time answering questions on the Help desk, because I have an interest in how people learn to use complex systems, and what causes them to have questions that the systems do not answer. The Help desk is kind of where the rubber hits the road on Wikipedia, and I see the roadkill - folks who read the instructions and didn't get it. When the instructions fail, I try to fix them, using what I have learned from people who make their living by telling people how to tell other people how to do things. --Teratornis (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section/Archive_7&oldid=1137421968"