Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 3

message: I cannot formulate a lead sentence, and neither, it seems, can any of the other editors working on this embattled article. It would be good if someone who has not been involved with this or related controversies could have a look. Thanks. Itsmejudith 22:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as someone who would consider himself uninvolved, I don't think that anyone who's accumulated more than a thousand or so edits and answered an RfC would be considered uninvolved by all participating editors. Hornplease 22:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I would really appreciate it if someone could take a detached view just from the point of view of how leads should be written. There are problems with a lot of history articles, e.g. Franciscan Order in modern times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs) 17:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I read this article again and I see that the lead does not need to define the subject if the subject is identifiable in the title and "History of..." is given as an example. However, should not the article title still appear in the first sentence in bold? This is not currently the case with some very important history articles, e.g. History of the United States, History of Los Angeles, History of New York, History of London. All of them, frankly, read as though the editors were unsure how to begin the article. I'll see if the history portal has its own guidelines. Itsmejudith 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems writing lead sentence in [[Islam and antisemitism]] 

message: There is a discussion on the placing of images or infoboxes in the lead section of articles. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox. The long standing guideline has been to use an image unless there is a compelling reason not to. However, the use of infoboxes in the top right has crept in. The suggestion is that an image should be used in the top right of the lead section, and that, unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, infoboxes should start below the lead section, preferably in the section to which the infobox actually relates. SilkTork 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like infoboxes myself, but they're widely used, and I can't see it stopping. You'd need strong support for that change. Do you have it? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we have is the start of a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox. It started as a question. But there appears to be - like yourself - a number of people who feel that use of infoboxes could do with some extra guidance. Please join the discussion. SilkTork 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to discuss adding this to WP:LEAD, please discuss it here, rather than on my talk page or on the MoS talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever this comes up, people say they don't like them but nothing is done about the box creep. For historical arts and bios I find them particularly obnoxious (Shakespeare, W. "Occupation: Playwright, poet, actor"). In other areas, such as taxa, they serve a clear purpose and are well-established. We could deprecate marginal boxes here; I'm sure we'd find support. But Silk, images and infoboxes are not an either/or. Boxes have images within them whenever possible. Marskell 15:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny that you mention Shakespeare, since that particular infobox does contain some useful information not contained in the lead section, including birthplace and a reference to "Elizabethan era". So if I wanted to find out where he was born, I'd have to either scroll down to the biography (only the birth and death dates are in the lead) or take a quick peek at the box - it's clear to me at least which I prefer. --Darkbane talk  16:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Scroll down..."—that's precisely what we want readers to do. Marskell 17:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But as a reader, that's precisely what I don't want to do unless I intend to read parts of the article ^_^; If there is a way to present the most relevant facts without having to scroll down, why would you want people to go dig for it? Isn't that essentially information hiding? --Darkbane talk  17:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone agreed that Shakespeare's birthplace was among the "most relevant facts" about him, we probably wouldn't have any dispute. But I think that many people would deny that this fact is particularly important. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Well, it's improbable, but not impossible that someone comes along thinking Shakespeare was born in Venice. But I think your statement is an issue for the standardization of a specific userbox template, and not necessarily an argument against userboxes as a whole. Rather than saying "let's get rid of some userboxes because they appear to have marginal value", I'd rather follow the line of thought that tries to improve those particular userboxes. --Darkbane talk  02:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, please discuss proposed changes to this page on this talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image or Infobox in Lead section 

message: There's a conversation going on at WT:NPOV#POV_in_first_sentence? about a reoccuring problem with the way people are introduced in articles. This may influence a change in the WP:LEAD policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLeon (talk • contribs) 
:Thanks for letting us know.
SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly POV statement in many lead sections. 

message: The question is: should the lead be a stand-alone summary? This page says yes, as do others, and that's how leads are mostly written. But without citations, it's obviously not stand-alone. So if you try to add to this page that citations in leads aren't necessary, the page will contradict itself. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as possible, a lead should be a good summary of the article. And as such it needs to be well sourced when required. Much of a do about nothing? Do we really need a 100K discussion on this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is, by definition, not stand-alone (self-contained) if the reader has to look elsewhere to find out what the sources are. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a strange argument. The lead is also by definition not "standalone" since it doesn't contain the article's references (assuming it uses footnotes). Again, the "standalone" wording does not resolve this dispute. Eubulides 06:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly so. People are making awfully strange claims here; it's as if policy says "all section headers must be in bold text", and editors here are insisting that there can be two kinds of bold text, the kind that is bold, and the kind that is not bold, and that one shouldn't force a preference onto the editor. Jayjg (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V does not require any particular form for citations. It does not require inline citations at all. Citation form is a style issue, not a policy issue. Eubulides 06:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Break 3

message: To me the premise being argued in which citations for the lead are demanded since to do so is against policy is arguing from a flawed position.  Never once does our policy demand inline citations.  Therefore, the lead does not have to contain inline citations, only material that is sourced from the referenmces provided within the article.  Hiding Talk  11:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That won't work, Hiding. My own random trawl (actually, starting from the first one and working my way down in order) found that most did have inline citations in the lead. We need a more systematic study if FAs are to be cited. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 11:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it will work. First, my own small tally also indicated that most had inline citations in the lead; but the tally was 9 to 7, indicating that the matter is closely contested. Second, some recent front-page articles have citations in the lead, but only for direct quotations or for controversial material about living people, for which there is no dispute that citations must be in the lead (Christopher C. Kraft, Jr. is one example); these should not count as evidence that all controversial material must be cited in the lead, but rather should count as the reverse. Third, even if it's the case that a majority of featured articles cite in the lead, the presence of a sizeable minority of articles that do not is powerful evidence that it is not required to cite in the lead when the corresponding material is properly cited in the body. Eubulides 14:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, it is not, at present, required for material to be inl;ine cited anywhere, is it?  So why the problem with inline citing and the lead. Hiding Talk  07:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flawed premise

message: I noticed an edit war going on around these parts. Edit wars on guideline pages are a "Bad Thing". I protected it for a week -- fight it out amongst yourselves. Just make sure there's consensus for any change, and that guideline pages never violate policy pages. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Circeus. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: How large should the paragraphs be in the lead? If a lead requires 3 paragraphs, how many sentences should those paragraphs contain? Ideally? Wikidudeman (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any correct answer. Speaking for myself, I am put off by long paragraphs in the lead and prefer crisp paragraphs of 3 to 5 sentences. The first paragraph can often take being very short indeed, since the births, dates, literal description, etc., don't usually add up to a good topic sentence.qp10qp 13:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of paragraphs 

message: I know the following is long, but I have a few thoughts that can help in creating and managing a lead. So far this method has produced some nice leads.
I have a rule of thumb that ensures proper coverage in the WP:LEAD:
* If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead.
Here is a table that can be used to help in creating and managing the lead. Just add the major headings and create short summaries of the contents of the various sections in the body of the article. Each item in the table should contain no more than one to three sentences that sum up the basic idea of each section in the article.
 
The lead is then created by placing those summaries in one (large) paragraph in the order it is found in the table. Then divide it into one to four paragraphs, depending on the size and type of article, and make appropriate changes so it flows as brilliant prose. The result should be a mini-version of the article without too much detail and with no repetition.  
HEADING                     	VERY SHORT SUMMARY
First heading after the lead	One to three sentences summarizing the content.
Second heading              	bla bla bla
Third heading               	bla bla bla
Fourth heading              	bla bla bla
Fifth heading               	bla bla bla
There should not be anything in the lead that doesn't refer to specific content in the article and is not backed up by specific references found in the article. There should not be any unnecessary elaboration or detail in the lead. Elaboration should be in the body of the article, not in the lead.
A well-written lead "should answer most or all of the 5 Ws."
Keeping references out of the lead makes the lead cleaner and easier to read. The explanatory and more detailed text with the references should be found in the article. Since refs are used to document specific content, and since the lead is a short summation in a generalized and unspecific format, I would see the use of references in the lead as a duplication of effort. If there are any references in the lead, they should be kept to a minimum. If a reference is required in the lead, then that might be a symptom that something is being introduced there that is not in the body of the article, and that would be improper.
Because articles change and grow, the lead should reflect those changes and be revised accordingly.
Otherwise I think the lead should prepare the reader for whatever is in the body of the article, should get them interested in the content, and inspire them to read the whole article. When they read the article they should not encounter any significant information that was not alluded to in the lead, IOW they should not be totally surprised by what they read in the body of the article. If they are surprised, then that item should be mentioned in the lead.
Wikipedia articles should cover all notable aspects of a subject. When our readers have read an article and then talk to others about the subject, they should be able to always answer "Of course, I already read about that at Wikipedia." They should at least have a basic knowledge of all aspects of a subject, enough to discuss it and not be totally surprised by what someone else tells them. -- Fyslee/talk 09:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to create and manage a good lead