Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

Discussion at WT:VN#RfC: Listing adapations released prior to the original in the lead

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:VN#RfC: Listing adapations released prior to the original in the lead. ∞陣内Jinnai 00:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLDTITLE: descriptive titles "should" not be bold?

There's a discussion on Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/GA1 that descriptive titles should not be in bold. The wording that descriptive titles should not appear in boldface was introduced in 2008. It is interesting that most of the examples given in WP:SBE, a supporting essay, do show the descriptive title in bold. I suspect that the wording might be more appropriate as it was previously - "it need not be in boldface". These featured articles use bold type for descriptive titles: Yellowstone fires of 1988, Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, July 2009 Ürümqi riots, Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre. It seems inappropriate for a guideline to be so strongly imposing a preference which is widely ignored. I would welcome a move back to "need not". Thoughts? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is identifying which are actual descriptive titles, and I wouldn't describe those myself as examples. Having said that, I quite "need not" as it gives more flexibility to embolden, without any other effects. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are we putting the article title in bold? If there is a solid reason for it, why is that reason different if the title is descriptive? I suspect we bold the title to quickly and easily identify for the reader the focus of the article, and so the reader knows they have landed in the right place. We should not force the language to simply accommodate the title, but if it is possible to use the title in the opening sentence, then it would make sense to bold it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The real issue, which seems to have become muddled somewhere along the line, is whether to include the article's title in the first sentence.

Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre is a good example of a descriptive title that naturally fits within a normal introduction. I see no reason why it shouldn't appear in bold.

2011 East Africa drought is a good example of a descriptive title that shouldn't be forced into the lead (resulting in something along the lines of "The 2011 East Africa drought is a severe drought has been affecting the entire East Africa region since mid-July 2011.").

I think that we should briefly explain the distinction, as we currently provide almost no indication of when it makes sense (or doesn't make sense) to include a descriptive title in the lead. (The wording "does not need to appear verbatim in the main text" is extremely vague.) —David Levy 17:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Need not be" is certainly better than "should not be." I haven't seen a good explanation of why "should not be" makes sense, and there are many examples where "descriptive" titles work very well in bold. Another problem with this rule is the use of the word "descriptive." Hopefully all our titles are descriptive, but the rule seems to try to distinguish between titles that are "merely descriptive" (used a few paragraphs above the rule) and some other type of title. I doubt that this is useful distinction, but if it is to be used we should try to describe it better. Probably a better approach would be to write something like: "Some titles may be difficult to use verbatim in the first sentence and need not be bolded." That takes care of the 0.1% of titles where bolding seems awkward, and doesn't impose anything on the 99.9% of titles where bolding seems quite natural. Smallbones (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The distinction, which I agree could be conveyed with greater clarity, is one between formal/de facto names (e.g. President of Ireland, Statue of Liberty, Hindenburg disaster) and descriptive titles lacking widespread recognition (e.g. Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, 2011 East Africa drought).

Otherwise, I agree with the crux of what you've written. But as noted above, this is more a matter of whether to include the title in the lead. It would make sense to explain that "merely descriptive" titles should be included (and bolded) when this can be accomplished without redundancy or other awkwardness. (Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre is an excellent example.) —David Levy 18:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're getting there. I think the guideline is taking us away from the issue by talking about descriptive titles. The issue is if the title can be accommodated in normal English in the opening sentence. If it can, then use it and bold it. If it can't, then don't bend the language in an effort to include it, and don't attempt to bold parts of the title as in The Beatles in the United States. If that is what we are working toward, then we need to look at appropriate wording. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible wording:

The article's title is stated as early as possible in the first sentence, and placed in bold:

The electron is a subatomic particle with a negative elementary electric charge. (Electron)

The inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre were held in AD 80. (Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre)

Only the first occurrence of the title, along with significant alternative titles is placed in bold:

Mumbai, formerly known as Bombay in English, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. (Mumbai)

If the article title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in its entirety in the opening sentence, then it does not need to appear exactly word by word, and the individual words do not need to be in bold:

The exact nature of Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) of China is unclear. (Tibet during the Ming Dynasty)

Thoughts? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The one reason to address the distinction between a formal/widely accepted name and a title that's merely descriptive is that we always include former in boldface. So we should simply note this fact, followed by the type of explanation that you suggest above. Example:

If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence:

The electron is a subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge. (Electron)

Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English:

The inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre were held in AD 80. (Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre)

Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles are placed in bold:

Mumbai, formerly known as Bombay in English, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. (Mumbai)

If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be bent in an effort to include it:

The 2011 Mississippi River floods were a series of floods affecting the Mississippi River in April and May 2011, which were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods)

Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy:

The Mississippi River floods in April and May 2011 were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods)

If the article's exact title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to segments that do appear:

The Beatles' rise to prominence in the United States on February 7, 1964 was a significant development in the history of the band's commercial success. (The Beatles in the United States)

—David Levy 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I like that - clearer and more helpful. Though the word bold is more common than boldface. Boldface is little used jargon - if it is felt that bold by itself is not clear enough, then bond font could be used, though bold is what is generally used. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Bold" seems fine to me. I've edited my example accordingly. —David Levy 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Overall, this seems like a huge improvement to me. Well done! Suggestions:

1. Use permalinks to the examples. I think one issue we've had with this guideline over the years is that example articles change significantly as Wiki Happens, and everybody is left wondering exactly what the authors were thinking when the example was added.
2. Since we bring it up, we might want to better specify what a "significant alternative title" is, and provide a counter-example of what not to do. Perhaps find something with a lot of synonyms, and show how ugly the huge mass of bolding is?

Again, great job on this. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Linking/bolding issue

Oh, one more thing: While we're at it, I have some uncertainty about the "don't bold titles with links" guideline, currently a bit further down the page. Take a look at History of the Americas. What's more important: A contextual link to Americas, or bolding the title? In other words, which of the following examples do we prefer?

1. Bold title without link:

The history of the Americas begins with people migrating to these areas from Asia during the height of an Ice Age.

2. Useful link without bold:

The history of the Americas begins with people migrating to these areas from Asia during the height of an Ice Age.

I know sometimes we can avoid the problem by rewording, but assuming we cannot, which guideline takes precedence? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the article's title is merely descriptive, it's preferable to include the link. Some such articles don't even contain the title verbatim, so it certainly isn't essential that it appear in bold.

Conversely, if an article's title is a formal/de facto name for the subject, it's preferable to shift the link to the relevant term's next instance. —David Levy 04:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a good point to raise, though opinions may be divided on which is more vital, the link, or the confirmation of the topic. As the solution is debatable, and we have agreement on the basic proposal, I don't wish to hold matters up on what we have agreed, so I will action the wording that has been agreed, and then we can separately discuss the linking/bolding issue. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that if people have arrived on a page regarding "history of the Americas", then reassurance that they have arrived at the right page for that topic is more vital than immediately linking words in the title. In the example given, DragonHawk has recently written an elegant solution, in which the term Americas is defined in proximity to the use of the term: "The history of the Americas (North, South, and Central America, and the Caribbean) begins...", which is in line with WP:EXPLAINLEAD. If the word is important to the topic, it will shortly be mentioned again, and on second use can be linked. If the word is obvious, then it doesn't need linking on first use if it contradicts with the bolding rule. If it is not obvious, then a brief summary is more useful than a link. I think we are all familiar with the "next link quest", where you are on a page, and are taken through a succession of links and pages in order to get a reasonable summary of a concept, and you end up far from where you started. While I do enjoy such serendipitous browsing, I would like an option regarding initiating such a search: give a basic summary, enough for understanding of the topic in hand, and provide a link for further detail at the earliest convenience. The link should not be vital to understanding. It should always be an option. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

On this issue, my preference isn't particularly strong; I favor the approach that I described above, but I regard both options as reasonable. —David Levy 11:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The third opinion included:

1. Bold title without link:

The history of the Americas begins with people migrating to these areas from Asia during the height of an Ice Age.

2. Useful link without bold:

The history of the Americas begins with people migrating to these areas from Asia during the height of an Ice Age.

3. Bold title with summary explanation in brackets:

The history of the Americas (North, South, and Central America, and the Caribbean) begins with people migrating to these areas from Asia during the height of an Ice Age.

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"broader geographical area"? how about country?

While stub-sorting I've found a batch of stubs for historic buildings in the USA, eg Sugarloaf School, which give the location as, for example "located in Jerome, Idaho." I've been adding ", United States," and suggested to the editor that s/he should include the country as WP is an international encyclopedia (no reply yet but it was very recent), but then I wondered. Looking at the MOS it says "For example, an article about a building or location should include a link to the broader geographical area of which it is a part.", which seems very vague. The county, state, country, continent are all "broader geographical area"s, and it's talking about links, not just inclusion in the text.

I had thought that WP style was to include the country in all cases.

I tried the technique recommended above, of looking at Featured Articles, and picked a few US buildings. I found a wonderful variety of treatments in lead sentences! I will add bolding to make it easier to see the various styles.

• 7 World Trade Center: ... is a building in New York City located across from the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan. no mention of country - perhaps NYC is a special case?
• The Chicago Board of Trade Building is a skyscraper located in Chicago, Illinois, United States.
• Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois): ... located along the northern edge of Millennium Park on Randolph Street in the Loop community area of Chicago in Cook County, Illinois, US.
• Monadnock Building: a skyscraper located at 53 West Jackson Boulevard in the south Loop community area of Chicago, Illinois. (But the third sentence is: "The tallest commercial load-bearing masonry building ever constructed, it employed the first portal system of wind bracing in America.")
• Oregon State Capitol: ... housing the state legislature and the offices of the governor, secretary of state, and treasurer of the U.S. state of Oregon.
• Tech Tower: ... located at 225 North Avenue NW in Midtown Atlanta, Georgia, USA, ...

So an unscientific sample of 6 FAs has 2 which don't mention the country in the lead sentence, and 4 which do (with 4 different spellings/versions of the name, some linked and some unlinked).

It looks, from that small sample of FAs, as if the country is more often included. I think it's helpful: a user of WP may well not remember whether a state such as "Michigan" is USA or Canada, or recognise on what continent to find "Idaho" (looks Japanese, doesn't it?).

Should the MOS be amended to say that the country should usually be included in the lead sentence, but need not be linked if an intermediate "broader geographical area" (state, county, province etc) is linked?

I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Style_guide#Opening_paragraph, which I checked as it was NRHP stubs which set me off on this, makes no specific recommendation and its examples of "typical NRHP leads" are inconsistent - compare its examples of Old North Church and Boston Public Library. Only one of their six mentions the country, though two more imply it by "American" and "United States Navy" in first sentence.

Any thoughts? PamD 15:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Need other opinions re Thanksgiving lede proper scope

Please comment at Talk:Thanksgiving# Proposed lede and MOS:LEAD dispute resolution. This concerns the scope of the article lede. Thanks.

Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to add to WP:LEADCITE

We are asked to define the subject in the lead. The formulation of this definition is often gotten from a particular source. I propose this be inserted for guidance, as the third sentence:

"Moreover, when defining the topic in reliance on a specific source or sources, it may be very useful to the reader or other editors to include an inline citation."

Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for graphical development of page headers

Wikipedia seems to crave images. I help out at the Graphic Lab and I'm often amazed by the seeming desparation to get more images onto Wikipedia, as evidenced by the sheer volume of low-quality images uploaded for want of a better image. (Where no image would be preferable, IMO.) And then there's pages like the Main Page and Portal pages that are as ugly as sin. Forgive my nostalgia but when I was a child I used to read encyclopedias for fun, and the images and diagrams were intrinsic to that experience. I'd like to see Wikipedia change drastically in terms of graphical content. Not just thumbnails everywhere but some sort of modern day illumination, with greater freedom of expression possible, making WP a more appealing read. By way of an example, what does anyboby think of this mockup of a graphical page header? (Further links are in the image description.) Any comments would be appreciated. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, but would be a huge target for vandalism and argument (also, how would the fade be done?). It would also be problematic for those on smaller screens and the title may not be readable, would depend on what's behind it. Probably too many issues to implement, but if you wanted to try to get consensus, I suggest WP:VPP. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)