Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Lead section page.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17|
|The attached page is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully.|
|WikiProject Manual of Style|
Archives of this page
should lede simply duplicate information found in a short article?
 Is there any reason to repeat information found in the two sections following the lede? If not, then perhaps an addition to the guideline page is in order, saying with short articles a lede should avoid becoming unnecessary redundant. Dream Focus 18:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't find anything on this page that says what to do with bolding text for list articles. For instance, is: (1) "A foo is..." or (2) "A foo is..." correct on the theoretical article "List of foo"?
If that is allowed, should "Foo" be in bold in the following example: "Foo is a television series that..." (List of Foo episodes)
If lists are mentioned on the page and I've missed it, I apologise (although it might be an indication that the relevant text/links should be more prominent). Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 17:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- The page does mention lists, but it's not really relevant to your question. I looked at a few lists (2 that randomly popped into my head, 2 that are FLs, and one that popped into my head and then turned out to be an FL), and none of them have anything bolded in the lead:
- By my interpretation, your example should read "Foo is a television series that..." (List of Foo episodes) —LucasThoms 03:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- On the other hand, some lists I picked out (fairly randomly) all contain bold:
- It doesn't like there is an official policy for this - although some of my examples seem to break other rules (no links in bold; bold has to be for consecutive text). The bottom two lists even repeat the entire article name (including "list(s) of") verbatim. Since there are 156,080 lists and 1917 of them are featured, this seems like a massive gap in policy. "Foo" for "List of Foo episodes" seems fair enough but should "List of Foo", "Foo" or nothing be bolded in "List of Foo"? Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 08:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- While non-bolding of lead elements in lists is standard for the Featured List process, it's actually one I disagree with. I fundamentally disagree with the guideline "do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear". I would bold something like: "The Mississippi River floods in April and May 2011 were among the largest and most damaging recorded...". The purpose of bolding is to visually define the scope of the article/list to the reader. Avoiding bad wording/redundancy is good, but I don't think that means we should abandon this important, user-friendly facet just because there is another word in between the terms.
- I don't understand how this kind of bolding to define the scope (e.g. "The Beatles' rise to prominence in the United States") represents a problem for, or a detriment to, our readers. When an article is a combination of terms or topics (e.g. Terapontidae) then we already happily bold the different elements separately. I propose we allow such bolding where the elements come naturally and close together within the wording of the lead sentence. SFB 09:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)