Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:19, 17 September 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Lead section page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 30 days

• WT:LEAD

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Lead length should be based on {chars/word} + {words/paragraph} not just raw characters

"Lead Length" should be based on {chars/word} + {words/paragraph} not just raw characters. Yes, it will vary based on article size but that is inevitable. This measurement concept holds equally true for Roman and Cyrillic texts, so this is about maintaining some semblance of a status quo for text readability.

However, the current character "Lead" size recommendations are overall too large and of no help to readability. The numbers seem to be derived out of thin air.

Here is my view on how the text should read. The text here really should have some text referring to word and sentence length. This is the most minimal modification to keep things sensible.

Eyreland (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to changes of character/para recommendations, but I do object to the added text "Paragraphs should contain between 2 and 11 sentences on average." Show me an article with a lead paragraph of 11 sentences, that is neither too long and hard to read, nor too clunky and full of unnecessarily short, simple sentences. I would think 6 sentences to a paragraph is generous enough - even the lead of World War I doesn't go beyond that, and WWI needed two paragraphs beyond the recommended "no longer than four". Maybe the problem lies with "7.5 words per sentence"; sentences should be way longer than that. Bilorv _(Contribs) 09:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Citations in lede for medicine

WikiProject Medicine maintains its own manual of style at WP:MEDMOS, and at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#References in the lead there is currently a discussion about requiring citations to be used in the lede. This follows another WikiProject Medicine pseudo-policy which suggests that citations should be used after every sentence. I am sharing notice of this here because I feel that the policies developed by WikiProject Medicine tend to influence other parts of Misplaced Pages.

This discussion is being introduced because of WikiProject Medicine's efforts through the Translation Task Force to translate English language health articles into other languages. This translation starts with the ledes of articles, then does more if volunteers are available. Before translating any text that text must go through a review process, and since people are reviewing only the ledes for translation, people have found that sometimes information in the ledes is of lower quality due to lack of citations than text in the body of the article.

The Medical Manual of Style presents community consensus on health articles, but people who are not interested in health are welcome to comment there also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"WikiProject Medicine maintains its own manual of style" is not correct, nor is "the policies developed by WikiProject Medicine". WP:MED maintains no policies at all, and while it does maintain it's own Manual of Style sub-page, it is subordinate to the main one and to the general rules in the not-field-specific sub-pages like MOS:LEAD; it is not "its own manual of style" in distinction to MOS. This is a matter of policy, at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If WP:MED wants to do something notably divergent from the mainstream MOS, editors who participate in that project should seek consensus outside their topical camp, to change the broader guidelines (either to apply more generally what the wikiproject want to do specifically, because it's a better approach, or to account for what the wikiproject wants to do as an explicit exception to general practice, and why).

That said, WP:V policy trumps WP:MOS; any facts added to a WP article's lead (which is not a lede) have to have citations somewhere in the article. If the facts are not in the main body of the article and cited there, then they have to be cited in the lead. That also means rewriting is in order, because something in the lead should also be mentioned in the main body of the article, as the lead is just a summary.

There is no WP rule that citations should be used after every sentence. Universally, they should be used after every fact or string of facts that come from a single source. There's no problem adding more citations to the same source, if several discrete but contiguous sentences came from the same source, especially if they're discrete enough that someone might insert other material between them. But some sentences require multiple internal citations when facts in them come from separate sources. I.e., there is no relationship of any kind between "a sentence has ended" and "facts need citations".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  20:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

While common sense trumps all those per WP:IAR. Thankfully it is not needed in this case as explained at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#References_in_the_lead so nicely by User:Seppi333. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

MOS:BEGIN question. Should an organizations objective be written in the language 'stated objective is' or simply as 'objective is' (presumption: reliable source available).

This has a background/context but there is no intention of bringing the edit war here. The question is if there are SPS and secondary sources describing the Objectives of an organization then can we write it in the lead paragraph like "with an objective of..." like it is in UNICEF, AIDA International, ActionAid articles or we must write it like "with a stated objective of...". I know it sounds quite small matter but an editor is willing to accuse me of canvassing for that change. If the exact context of the discussion is needed I can provide it. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 08:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Repetition of content from article

Hi, Recently I have run into disputes with other editors who object to my addition of content from the article body into the lead. MOS:LEAD doesn't specifically say that you should not repeat sentences that appear later in the article. In some cases, there are excellent summary sentences in the article that are suitable for relocation into the lede (e.g., "After the loss in the battle of XXXX, the Roman Empire began to decline.") Taking a sentence from the article body like this sometimes seems desirable, especially if the wording is very good. I am wondering if I have to re-word an excellent summary sentence like this as follows: ("The Roman empire declined after the Roman Army's significant loss in the battle of XXXX"). It would be good if the MOS:LEAD could give some guidance on whether it is OK to include individual sentences that occur in the body of the article.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Concerns have again been raised by editors after I re-used content from the article body in the article lead. It would be helpful if the MOS:LEAD could clearly say whether or not text from the article body can be re-used in the lede.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, text from the article body can be reused in the lead; happens all the time since the lead is supposed to summarize the article body, though the lead might have a bit of different wording on the matter (and, in my opinion, it's best to shake up the wording a bit; have slightly different wording). Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Flyer. One can use text in the body in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. What do you think about my proposal to have this issue raised in the MOS:LEAD. It could say "The Lead section can repeat short excerpts of text from the article body. However, the cutting and pasting of entire paragraphs should not normally occur."OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, but let's see if others have anything to state about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a sense that WP:BRD doesn't apply to policy pages. So I will wait patiently here until more editors comment : )OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I just read the statement that "The attached page is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully." OK. Wait patiently!OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD, which is an essay (not a guideline or policy), can apply to policy pages as well. But, yes, it's better to wait and see if anyone objects to your proposal. Not only have they not yet objected here on the talk page, they have not yet objected to the hidden note you added regarding it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There's little more I can say about this proposal than "I agree". If sentences or clauses would work nicely in the lead and in the main body, why not have them in both? The only tiny suggestion I have is to add the words "where appropriate" or something to the end of the first sentence proposed ("the Lead section can repeat...") - just to put a little bit of emphasis on the fact that the copied text has to work well in a summary, and that repeated text in the lead/body shouldn't necessarily be a common thing. Bilorv _(Contribs) 17:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is the article's body which reiterates material that originates in the lead making it odd to describe text from the body as being repeated in the lead. Aside the dyslexic estrangement, yes, the points summarized in the lead not only can be repeated but in fact they should reoccur. Furthermore they should be expanded with more detail than the lead summary introduces. For example, where the lead might say in effect: "Article subject appeared in over thirty feature length films.", the body would expand that point, perhaps saying: "Article subject appeared in over thirty feature length films including film 1, film 2, and film 3."—John Cline (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It might sound strange - I suppose it is - but I would say that text is being repeated in the lead. The lead is written based on the rest of the article, a summary presented first for the convenience of readers. From a reader's point of view, if they read both the sentence in the lead and then the sentence under the relevant section heading, the material is being repeated in the body. But really, the sentence is being taken from the body and used into the lead. Bilorv _(Contribs) 17:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason I describe the lead as "taking text from the body" is because of the section WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, which is an essay, not a policy, but it still raises the issue in the manner I described (the lead following the body). As well, when you are creating a lead for an article that only has a one sentence lead, you go to the body to find your material for the lead that you create. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Everyone, what is the "bar" for having a Talk page consensus to actually make a proposed change in the MOS:LEAD. Do we need a few more editors to add their comments, or do we have enough now. Secondly, if I make a WP:BRD Bold proposed change to the MOS:LEAD, am I risking administrative sanctions?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLDTITLE - "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead"?

WP:BOLDTITLE says, "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead" In plant articles, the article title is usually of the form Genus species. The genus rarely occurs again either in the lead or in the body, yet is the most important link other than the link to the plant family, which is usually in the first sentence. Anyone who is a frequent Misplaced Pages plant article user knows to look for a link to the genus in the taxo-box, but what about casual users who don't? Discussion is here. FloraWilde (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)