Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

Standard lead paragraph length

With this edit (which I reverted) by Spinningspark, Spinningspark changed the longstanding part of the guideline that states "[the lead] should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." Spinningspark changed it to "length should be commensurate with the size of the article and be carefully sourced as appropriate." And below on the same page, Spinningspark changed "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs." to "For a long article the lead might typically be four paragraphs—but this is not an absolute rule." Spinningspark cited Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 17#Four-paragraph lead for the changes.

Like I stated in the edit summary for my revert of Spinningspark's edit, I see no WP:Consensus that the page should have been changed in such a way. And I consider the changes problematic because this is a longstanding part of the guideline that most very experienced Wikipedians are familiar with, especially experienced WP:Good article and experienced WP:Featured article reviewers. Like Spinningspark stated in the above linked discussion, this portion of the guideline is practically set in stone. This to me means, because of its mass reach and the fact that most of the people familiar with it will not be aware of such changes made to it until much later, these changes should be something that the WP:Manual of Style editors in general decide on; in other words, a lot more people. I feel that the general WP:Manual of Style editors should be invited to this discussion. I also don't agree with the changes because I believe that we should have a standard length; the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" rule has remained strong because it usually does not take more than four paragraphs to summarize an article and we generally should not have articles that have leads exceeding that length; the last thing we need are people thinking that five or more paragraphs for the lead is generally a good thing. This portion of the guideline is not about "[f]or a long article the lead might typically be four paragraphs—but this is not an absolute rule"; it's about the lead likely being too big if it exceeds four paragraphs. Flyer22 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation Flyer22. Just because something has been established for a long time does not mean that it cannot be improved. Why do you think that more than four paragraphs is intrinsically bad? Would it be wrong to have five pargraphs in an article that was twice the length (60kB) of the largest entry in the table? Or five very short paragraphs? In the particular case that provoked this discussion an FA submission with five paragraphs was challenged in which the fifth paragraph expanded upon what was not in the article scope. This seemed to me a legitimate reason for lengthening the lead but was being prevented by an overly prescriptive guideline. As I indicated on your talk page, the original discussion was trailed at the Village Pump. Why do you think that that was inadequate? SpinningSpark 18:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the discussion on my talk page that Spinningspark is referring to, where it is further indicated that there was no WP:Consensus for the aforementioned changes. I agree that "Just because something has been established for a long time does not mean that it cannot be improved." As for "Why do [I] think that more than four paragraphs is intrinsically bad?", I addressed that above: "it usually does not take more than four paragraphs to summarize an article," as I'm certain that the vast majority of WP:Good article and WP:Featured article reviewers would attest to. WP:Too long, didn't read (people not reading what they deem to be overly long text on Wikipedia) is a real issue, and we need to make sure that our Wikipedia leads are sufficient in length without potentially driving readers away because they are overly long. Why don't you consider why the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" rule was implemented in the first place -- that it has lasted as long as it has because it generally works for Wikipedia articles and should not be changed simply because of an encounter you had with a reviewer who interpreted the guideline too strictly? As was explained to you in the discussion I linked to in my first comment in this section, this guideline did not prevent you from the lead you desired; a reviewer who perhaps wrongly applied the guideline did. I don't believe that exceeding four paragraphs is always bad; for example, it's often needed for president articles, such as Barack Obama, and sometimes for other political articles, but even the Barack Obama WP:Featured article is currently four paragraphs. So an actual better political example exceeding four paragraphs is the WP:Good article Hillary Rodham Clinton, which is currently at five paragraphs (one could argue that five paragraphs are not needed there). But for Wikipedia articles to generally exceed four paragraphs? No, I'm not seeing it as needed. Nothing wrong with indicating in our guideline that more than four paragraphs generally is not needed.

Also, in my opinion, it generally is not good to make changes to guidelines like you did in this case and now here simply because of one bad experience you had and because you posted a complaint on the guideline's talk page and either didn't get any responses or got a few responses. You should always keep in mind that these guidelines affect the Wikipedia community as a whole and generally should have solid WP:Consensus before such significant changes are made to them. While no response can mean WP:Consensus, it often does not mean WP:Consensus; anyone who spends time at enough contentious Wikipedia articles knows that. If you wouldn't be making such changes to Wikipedia policies, I don't think you should be making them to Wikipedia guidelines either. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well WP:BRD applies to policy and guideline pages just as much as it does to any other page. It is ridiculous to expect me to assume that there will not be a consensus because of those that did not participate in the discussion. I am not a mind reader. Your fundamental argument seems to be that a lead more than four paragraphs will make it too long. I disagree with this: firstly, splitting into more paragraphs often makes text more readable without changing the length, and secondly and consequently, number of paragraphs does not directly relate to text length. Insisting on four paragraphs could have the wholly undesirable effect of encouraging the combination of text into overly long and less digestible paragraphs; much more of a TLD case. You are wrong that I am merely "complaining" about one example. I have seen this problem before, but this time it directly affected me and I decided to do something about it.

Anyway, we clearly disagree. How do you propose we go about finding community consensus on the issue? SpinningSpark 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that "[i]t is ridiculous to expect [you] to assume that there [is not a] consensus because of those that did not participate in the discussion" (it's not like you had good, as in sufficient, participation); it is not any more ridiculous than expecting that there is WP:Consensus simply because editors, such as myself, ignored your complaints. Per WP:Consensus, WP:Consensus versions should be adhered to until new WP:Consensus is achieved. And I don't see how it was at all adequate for you to assume that new WP:Consensus had been achieved in either of the instances above, especially the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" matter; I don't see how you felt that it was a great idea to change such a longstanding guideline -- the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" aspect, except because you like the idea of an article's lead exceeding four paragraphs. If it is applying WP:BRD (testing the waters), okay then, but I still don't believe that significant changes should be made to a guideline or policy without clear-cut WP:Consensus. The guideline is not insisting on four paragraphs; it's insisting on not exceeding four paragraphs, and for very good reasons. Reasons I've already noted above. I agree that a Wikipedia lead of five short paragraphs can be fine and look nice, but I have seen Wikipedia leads with five or more short paragraphs that look a mess, and Wikipedia leads of those lengths (especially surpassing five paragraphs) generally looking like messes...very much WP:Too long, didn't read messes. I don't see anything wrong with having a length standard for leads (a general cut-off point)...especially one that has been followed for years generally without any problems; just like MOS:PARAGRAPHS makes clear that paragraphs that are too big can inhibit flow, it makes clear that paragraphs that are too small can as well.

As for proceeding, your post to the WP:Village pump about this did not work out well. So like I suggested above, I will alert the editors of WP:Manual of Style to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not said I like more than four paragraphs. Actually, I think four is a helpful guide. I just don't think that that should be a fixed as a maximum. You just said yourself that you think five can sometimes work. SpinningSpark 01:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The lead being no more than four paragraphs is set as a helpful guide. As has already been stated, it is not mandatory; it's a part of a guideline, after all, not a policy. And I'd essentially already expressed that five paragraphs can work when I stated, "I don't believe that exceeding four paragraphs is always bad; for example, it's often needed for president articles, such as Barack Obama, and sometimes for other political articles, but even the Barack Obama WP:Featured article is currently four paragraphs. So an actual better political example exceeding four paragraphs is the WP:Good article Hillary Rodham Clinton, which is currently at five paragraphs (one could argue that five paragraphs are not needed there). But for Wikipedia articles to generally exceed four paragraphs? No, I'm not seeing it as needed." In other words, and as I've made clear more than once now, I generally don't think that a Wikipedia lead should exceed four paragraphs. I feel that we should stay with our (general) cut-off point of four paragraphs; I don't see that guideline as broke, and therefore I don't see it as needing fixing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if we start from "up to four paragraphs", how do we define "a paragraph"? I mean, what should be the maximum length of such a paragraph? Please, let's remember that the lead section should always be as concise as possible – that's what people read first, and decide whether to go deeper into the article or not. Also, things (including lead sections) can be messy regardles of their length. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I am less concerned with the MOS change, which essentially says the same thing using different prose, than I am with the notion of restricting the lead to four paragraphs; and then, I presume, dis-favoring long paragraphs that can easily be split. What matters is that the lead adequately summarizes the body and therefor that it be commensurate in size.—John Cline (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

John Cline, and it's often been that editors have not easily judged what is adequate lead size without applying the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" standard; that standard has consistently helped leads adequately summarize articles without the lead being too small or too big; never have I seen it present itself as a problem. I've seen it help in countless WP:Good and Featured article processes, and don't think it should be changed because Spinningspark had a bad experience with a reviewer who applied it. In fact, I'll go ahead and invite editors at WP:Good article, WP:Featured article and WP:Featured article candidates to weigh in on this discussion as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The subset of the reviewers at Good and Featured articles who blindly apply rules without considering how well they apply to individual cases are what causes this text to be problematic. I hope the ones you bring in to this discussion are the more thoughtful ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out, I did not completely remove the suggested four paragraphs in my edit, that was left in the table of suggested lengths. It was just a change of emphasis to make it less of an instruction. SpinningSpark 02:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would welcome an RFC on this. The fact that the rule is long-standing and well-known is irrelevant: if we applied such a criterion, Wikipedia would ossify. The rule seems arbitrary to me, and it gives rise to a temptation to cram too much into one paragraph. I see this too often. --Stfg (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Then we should do a WP:RfC, and advertise it well because the fact that the rule is long-standing and well-known is not irrelevant to me; not any more irrelevant than the WP:3RR rule and the revert limit being set at three reverts. I don't ever think that it is a good idea to significantly tamper with a long-standing policy or guideline that has worked well for years (not that some editors don't argue against the WP:3RR rule). And Spinningspark's changes were significant because they eliminated that rule and applied it in a non-helpful general way (that long articles may have a four-paragraph lead, when the same can be stated of five paragraphs...and so on). Discarding the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" rule will give rise to the lead issues I noted above; I always see those issues, which are always well worked out once the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" rule, which again is not mandatory, is applied. It is a standard, and far less harmful (not harmful at all in my experience) than some of our other Wikipedia standards. Flyer22 (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

We could do a RFC if you insist, but I feel this would be too much of WP:BURO. Do we have to have a RFC on every minor detail in MoS? As far as I'm concerned, we're having this RFC right now, maybe in a less structured manner. That being said, I support the change, as I think that imposing too rigid rules (such as the old one of four paragraphs) is both an instruction creep and an invite to ruleslawyer (such as arbitrarily merging and breaking paragraphs), which is contrary to Wikipedian spirit. MoS should be describe best practices, not prescribe them. If this is just a guideline, it should be presented in softer terms, leaving the four paragraphs rule just as a rule of thumb, not as a commandment. No such user (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

For a longstanding and widely used guideline like this? Yes, a (well-advertised) WP:RfC is best, just as Stfg indicated. I fail to see how the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" aspect is a WP:CREEP violation (which would be a violation of an essay anyway) or any of the other things you mentioned, when this is a guideline instruction that works well and always, in my experience, when applied correctly, keeps leads from being an absolute mess. We now need to change this very good instruction because Spinningspark had a bad experience with a reviewer's interpretation of it? That's ridiculous to me. Editors often see policies and guidelines differently, even the WP:3RR rule. Does that mean that we should change those policies and guidelines each and every time, or at all, in such cases? No, as far as I'm concerned. Guidelines instruct. And so this guideline instructs that leads generally don't need to be any longer than four paragraphs; time and again this have proven true -- leads generally don't need to be more than four paragraphs. And Spinningspark stated above (at "01:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)"), "Actually, I think four is a helpful guide." So I cannot at all see it as a good idea to eliminate this guideline. It does describe best practice. And it specifically states that it is not an absolute rule, but rather a general one. Flyer22 (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Spinningspark did not eliminate the guideline [1], but instead replaced it with length should be commensurate with the size of the article (which I welcome) on one place, and rephrased the previous (rather awkward) wording on the other with For a long article the lead might typically be four paragraphs—but this is not an absolute rule., basically stating the same as before. Wording could be perhaps ironed out, but I don't think the four-paragraph rule should exist in the lead section (because, quote, "many only read the lead". No such user (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Spinningspark did eliminate the guideline; like I stated above, "And Spinningspark's changes were significant because they eliminated that rule and applied it in a non-helpful general way (that long articles may have a four-paragraph lead, when the same can be stated of five paragraphs...and so on)." Not a helpful change in the least, in my opinion. Besides that, Spinningspark moved it out of the lead, where it needs to be as well. That readers often don't read past the lead (like WP:Lead states) applies to Wikipedia editors as well. And yet you don't think the four-paragraph rule should exist in the lead? That's not logic that I follow. Flyer22 (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for pointing out yet again that I did not remove all mention of four paragraphs, only changed the emphasis. It seems that Flyer22 will not be satisfied without a formal RFC so let's just do it already. SpinningSpark 12:07, 28 February 2014‎ (UTC)

I never stated that you removed all mention of it. But since you must not have seen my commentary about "well advertised" with regard to the WP:RfC, then I will alert various WikiProjects to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I was in the process of trailing at the MOS talk page and VPB when you posted. By all means advertise at Wikiprojects as well although I would have thought we already have wide enough involvement. SpinningSpark 12:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I was about to state "and possibly other outlets...such as the WP:Village pump," but you got the WP:Village pump (VPB) covered. Flyer22 (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, for those who have not already looked at my latest contributions to see see what type of notification I was sending the WikiProjects, this is it. And below are all the WikiProjects I contacted; these are the aforementioned outlets I mentioned (I stuck with WikiProjects). At first, I was thinking of the big WikiProjects on my own...but then I started to look for WikiProjects based on WP:RfC's Issues by topic area categorization format. I would have contacted Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies earlier, but I didn't think to do so until late in the run. And I initially overlooked Wikipedia:WikiProject Trade and Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies when following the WP:RfC categorization format. Here are all the WikiProjects I contacted, in order of contact (and, yes, I feel like I contacted all of Wikipedia; wish I had a bot to have done it for me):

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Television ‎
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Film ‎ ‎
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy ‎
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians
• Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Law
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Science
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics
• Wikipedia:WikiProject History
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Media
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy
• Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Culture
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Trade
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC on four paragraph lead

The guideline currently indicates that leads should generally be a maximum of four paragraphs. Do editors support softening the wording to make clear that this is not a firm rule? If editors do support such a change, do they support the (currently reverted) wording proposed by user Spinningspark? SpinningSpark 12:07, 28 February 2014‎ (UTC)

See the above discussion on the guideline talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Support Spinningspark's wording

1. Support It is counterproductive to have such arbitrary rules. SpinningSpark 12:07, 28 February 2014‎ (UTC)
2. Support. I have seen editors get around the rule by writing inappropriately long paragraphs in the lead. Such paragraphs actually hinder clarity for the reader and would be better off split into more paragraphs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, as I said above. It is too rigid and opens the door for wikilawyering. No such user (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Support an improvement, but could probably be even better worded.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Support. If specific alternative softened wordings are proposed I would also likely support them, but I see Spinningspark's wording as a clear improvement over what we have now. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Spinningspark's wording

1. Oppose I support softening, but those are the wrong words. The size of the lede should be related to the reader's experience (i.e. it should provide a good overview that isn't TL;DR). I don't see that this need be commensurate with the size of the article. --Stfg (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - those are the wrong words. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose - those words are a step backwards. They make it seem like something like a 10% rule would apply to articles of any length. Even the oversized articles (60-100KB or more of readable prose) should generally try to stay within a 4 paragraph and 3000-3200ish character size.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose I think the four paragraph rule is a useful bright line. If it were upped, well, there would be few practical limitations on the length of the lede, and that would make things more difficult at the FAC process since the nominator could point to the rule when a reviewer opposed, and it would lead to more conflict. Any article really needing 5 paragraphs can be handled through IAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose. The existing wording says, in part: "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule". It seems to me that those words already achieve sufficient softening. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Four paragraphs seems pretty good to me. — Cirt (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
7. Current wording is sufficiently soft. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
8. Oppose, agree with Stfg. Zad68 06:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Support softening, not necessarily Spinningspark's text

1. Support It is counterproductive to have such arbitrary rules. SpinningSpark 12:07, 28 February 2014‎ (UTC)
2. Support The length of a paragraph is like the length of a piece of string. The 4-paragraph recommendation is arbitrary. We clearly need to give some guidance as to what makes a good overview, but this one poor, and one does sometimes see it insisted upon to strongly. (Something about word count might be OK, but I'm not attached to this). --Stfg (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Comment I could support softening of the guideline, but only where it is clear that a lead being more than four paragraphs generally is not needed. For the time being, I am more so leaning toward opposing any softening of the guideline, as shown below. Flyer22 (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Per Stfg. Generally too-short leads are far more of a problem, and in article text generally, too-short paragraphs. At least the current wording discourages over-short paras in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Support, per Stfg. No such user (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
6. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
7. SUPPORT—John Cline (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
8. Support, comparing to featured articles is disingenuous, most articles will never get the attention of those articles. What a four paragraph rule does is encourage people to delete anything extra or force content into four paragraphs. Perhaps a one-rule-fits-millions of articles isn't best here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
9. Support The lead section should be long enough to properly summarize the rest of the article, whether that be just 1 paragraph or 6. Setting an arbitrary number for paragraph, even a recommended maximum number, does not always lead to a lead section that properly summarize the most important aspects in the article. That is because the lead section should be able to serve as a stand-alone article unto itself. The sub-sections that follow simply add details to what is covered by the lead. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
10. Support a move away from a "four paragraph" prescription but would rather see a recommendation (not a hard limit) based on a number of words, rather than a number of paragraphs. We have WP:SIZERULE based on the maximum amount of content a reader can be expected to consume in one sitting; I think the lead should be the important content a reader can be expected to consume while standing on one foot (or the like). Whether I as the copyeditor of a lead would like to split that up into three or four or five paragraphs should be my choice, driven by groupings of subject areas in the article I'm trying to summarize. Zad68 06:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
11. Support I think it's worth establishing consensus of the need for change first and then crafting the change collaboratively. No objection in practice to the proposed words, I'd just like to take it a step at a time. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
12. Support and provide some guidance, but not the arbitrary hard "4 paragraph" rule. The proposed change is a good start, but it doesn't provide enough guidance. The problem with 4 paragraphs as a guideline is that it can be met by people just eliminating carriage returns between paragraphs to get a completely arbitrary "4" breaks. Completely useless for providing guidance as to proper length. The lead should be of a length commensurate with the length of the article, but we should also provide some better guidance of how to do that. Not just an arbitrary length, but guidance on how to write a lead that is of the appropriate length. --Jayron32 11:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
13. Support While many, probably a majority of articles can do with that limit, many of the longer ones will require longer ones. Circéus (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
14. Support I agree with the discussions below about how each paragraph should represent a topic. Some articles may need more than four paragraphs to properly summarise the article. I think it would be wise to recommend that they try to keep the summary short, but not too short and use four paragraphs as a guideline, but there is no reason to make it a rule. Zell Faze (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
15. Support I agree that the wording should be softened but it should be clear that some limit (i.e. a reasonable one) exists. APerson (talk!) 22:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
16. Support (similar to Jayron32 & Zad68) The emphasis should be stressing that (a) the lead should be in proportion to the main article text, then (b) an upper word limit guideline. The current paragraph-based guideline is a poor proxy for these two guiding aspects. SFB 07:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
17. Support It should be emphasised a little more that this is a soft rule. Also, we need to capture the fact that the length of paragraphs can vary and it maybe conducive to have 5+ small paragraphs rather than combining unrelated sentences. Zangar (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
18. Support. Leads shouldn't be allowed to get out of hand, and I think that even a lot of short leads are longer than they should be, but "four paragraphs" is just too easy to get around (say, by simply squishing two paragraphs together). I wrote a (quite long—3668 B) five-paragraph lead for ukiyo-e, and somebody brought it up on the talk page (safe to read—no explosive arguing). I honestly don't know where I could drop an entire paragraph—it's all pretty basic to the topic. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
19. Support - A single paragraph should contain one idea. Strongly encouraging "no more than 4" just makes people write bad paragraphs by eliminating carriage returns. If a subject has 5 major topics, it should have 5 (short) paragraphs in the lead. If it has 3 major subjects, it should have 3, etc. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose any softening

1. Oppose. Like I stated above: "[T]his is a [longstanding] guideline instruction that works well and always, in my experience, when applied correctly, keeps leads from being an absolute mess [ WP:Too long, didn't read, for example ]. We now need to change this very good instruction because Spinningspark had a bad experience with a reviewer's interpretation of it? That's ridiculous to me. Editors often see policies and guidelines differently, even the WP:3RR rule. Does that mean that we should change those policies and guidelines each and every time, or at all, in such cases? No, as far as I'm concerned. Guidelines instruct. And so this guideline instructs that leads generally don't need to be any longer than four paragraphs; time and again this have proven true -- leads generally don't need to be more than four paragraphs. And Spinningspark stated above (at '01:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)'), 'Actually, I think four is a helpful guide.' So I cannot at all see it as a good idea to eliminate this guideline. It does describe best practice. And it specifically states that it is not an absolute rule, but rather a general one." Flyer22 (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
2. comment rewording or clarification is potentially an option, but "softening" because of one bad experience is a terrible idea. there is no evidence that there is a widespread problem that would be "fixed" and lots of potential for unforeseen bad side effects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose. The length of the article has no bearing on the length of the lead. Eric Corbett 15:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Per what Flyer22 said. Four paragraphs (in complete moderate length) is fine and quite enough. If users feel the need to over-load the paragraphs, it should also be another editor's right to shorten them to the important information. Rarely do I see over-loaded introductory paragraphs. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I would prefer strengthening to suggest that going beyond 3000-3200 characters of readable prose is almost always counterproductive.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Tony and likelivemusic, and my comments above.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Four paragraphs is enough. We don't need to write an entire Start-class article in the lead. We're only talking about best practices here, and consensus can establish that four paragraphs is not enough; there isn't really a problem to be solved. I agree with the others that we should encourage simplicity and conciseness. Overloaded paragraphs can be (and are) trimmed down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Ditto. See WP:LEADLENGTH and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. An overlong lead is a sign of poor writing and/or POV problems. Lightbreather (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Four paragraphs is plenty. Can we change it to three? Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
10. Oppose Our guidelines are blunt because when it is clever people can WP:IAR. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
11. Oppose. I'm all in favor of WP:IAR about lead length, but I think the existing wording is flexible enough, while not becoming meaningless. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
12. Oppose The current wording isn't hard and fast at all: "it should ideally contain" and "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule". Adabow (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

    Based on previous conversations here, some people believe those two phrases are contradictory: "ideal" leads are always, without exception, no more than four paragraphs, but "bad" (or "non-ideal") leads are not absolutely prohibited for typical articles. I've seen people at GA reviews demand that the blank line between two short paragraphs be removed because (even though it's "not [an] absolute rule"), only four paragraphs can be accepted as GA per the earlier statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

    I'd be fine with changing "ideally" to "generally," which is an option I've been thinking about since yesterday (non-Wikipedia time, meaning since the 27th). Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

    Flyer22, I think that would be an improvement. It would resolve the apparent "contradiction" that some people find in the current wording. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

13. Oppose Yes the lead should generally be 3 or 4 paragraphs IMO. If it is too long than it should be shortened. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Am in favour of a hard limit. A lead more than four paragraphs is too long. --LT910001 (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

    LT910001 , the problem with a "hard limit" defined in paragraphs is that 18 sentences divided between four paragraphs and the same 18 sentences divided between five paragraphs is the same length. Adding a blank line in the middle of paragraph #4 does not actually make it any longer. The only real difference is that the five-paragraph version may be slightly better for reading comprehension (shorter paragraphs are more readable). Do you really support four very long paragraphs, or would you prefer some method of actually keeping the leads shorter (like a word count)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

15. Oppose while granting that there may be some articles that need longer lead sections. (If they really do, that would be a case for common sense and WP:IAR.) I understand the difficulty of summarizing a long article in 4 paragraphs, but I believe it can be done in the vast majority of cases, which is why I think this rule should stay as is. Yes it's a bit arbitrary, but I don't think softening it will lead to an improvement for the encyclopedia. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
16. Oppose. I think four paragraphs is just fine for length of the intro sect. — Cirt (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
17. Oppose: Four paragraphs is just fine. Too long lead sections cause them not to be digestable easily enough, what defeats the main reason behind the very existence of lead sections. Also, if we go to five paragraphs, then we'd later go to six and so on, what would make little sense. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
18. Oppose: An article for which a lead summary requires more than 4 paragraphs likely should be split. • Astynax ^talk 05:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
19. Oppose if you know all the rules you know the rules don't need to be softened. WP:IAR If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Use common sense. It can't get any softer than that. If it calls for more than four paeagraphs then it can be easily explained on the talk page.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Flyer22. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
21. Oppose, with comment It's already a soft rule, not a hard one; I don't think it needs softening further. If one is worried about inducing people to overpack the four paragraphs, I would not be averse to an addition to the "Elements of the lead" section explaining that (e.g.) "This guideline is more about overall length than the number of paragraphs per se. It should not be used to justify combining paragraphs which read better split." 71.41.210.146 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
22. Oppose. The guideline already allows for exceptions (bold added): "it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs," "should normally be no more than four paragraphs," "should usually be no longer than four paragraphs." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
23. Oppose I think the current wording of WP:LEADLENGTH allows enough flexibility for exceptional cases. Sasata (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
24. Oppose pre m:CREEP. The lede should generally be four paras or fewer. This has always been so, nobody seems to have a problem understanding the guideline or with ignoring it when appropriate. Perhaps we should instead have a policy forbidding the rejection of good content based on applying guidance as if it were a rule. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment How long is a paragraph? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Johnbod, above in the support softening section, you stated, "At least the current wording encourages over-short paras in the lead." I don't understand how "[the lead] should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs" encourages over-short paras in the lead. Care to explain? Flyer22 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that he meant "discourages", not "encourages". Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, changed! Sorry. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Lugnuts makes a very good point IMO. In giving an overview of the article, there may be more natural breaks in some articles than others, so a five paragraph lede could in effect be shorter than a three paragraph lede. Why not introduce a sensible word limit i.e. 100–1000 words? Having a lower bound may encourage avoidance of one sentence ledes. A lede is supposed to be a brief overview of the article, so key here is that it's brief, and the number of paragraphs isn't really the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's unclear to me whether the goal with this change is to support leads that have five (perhaps short) paragraphs, or to discourage long ones. I think it would be desirable to state that a good lead normally has more than one sentence, and I'm uncertain that the paragraph count is the best way to express the size.

Here are stats from some recent TFAs:

Size of leads from featured articles

words	368	206	348	200	313	283
paragraphs	3	3	3	3	3	3
characters	1917	977	1769	943	1635	1596

(The number of characters excludes spaces.) As you can see, all of them have the same number of paragraphs, but one has 67 words per paragraph and another has 123 words per paragraph, so it's nearly twice as long. A word count might be a better description: more than 50 words, less than 500? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? The existing system has worked well. Show me an article that really needs a fifth paragraph and we will talk. But a paragraph is more than just words. I'm not going to go back to junior high English, but there should be a structure there. I just don't see any reason why someone needs to do that five times.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Precisely because of structure, and that junior-high concept that each paragraph should have a single main topic. For example, in writing about a disease, you might reasonably want these single topics to be addressed:

1. What it is (e.g., it's a parasitic infection, what the pathogen is, how one is exposed to it)
2. What the symptoms are (e.g., itchy eyes, allergic reactions)
3. What the treatments are (e.g., drugs, vaccines)
4. What the prognosis is (e.g., curable if treated soon enough, blindness if not)
5. What the sociocultural history is (e.g., affects primarily poor rural people, causes economic damage)

That's five topics, and five topics could reasonably be organized into five short paragraphs. Some people (probably including your composition teachers) would even say that five paragraphs would proper, and that you cannot write a proper topic sentence or properly constructed paragraphs unless you split out each significant topic into its own paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment In my vote I mentioned WP:LEADLENGTH and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I might add that sentence length - especially in the lead - is key. A good tool to use when checking readability is the Flesch-Kincaid readability index calculator. There is no good reason for general articles to ever rise above Grade level 12 readability. Keep sentences readable! Lightbreather (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Probably the highest profile article with a five paragraph lead is World War II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Tangent: I recently put together m:Concise Wikipedia#A summary of existing short-options, using an example which many involved in this thread might find useful/interesting. The page itself is a recurring (perennial) proposal at Enwiki and at Meta, to create a "synopsis version" of Wikipedia articles. This most recent one is from late 2012. –Quiddity (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Regarding the latest "votes" on this matter, I have expressed that inappropriate WP:Canvassing may have taken place, and may still be taking place, regarding this WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

More precisely, you accused Spinningspark of canvassing, without any direct evidence, and Spinningspark denied any knowledge of it. It seems plausible enough to me that the newer incoming contributors are instead coming from neutral sources such as the Signpost discussion report. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I asked. And there was no better person to ask, since the WP:RfC is based on me and Spinningspark being at opposite ends of this topic, and Spinningspark is a WP:Administrator (like I noted on Spinningspark's talk page, there's been a recent wave of WP:Administrator "votes"). To me, asking Spinningspark that question is not an accusation. Does it imply that I think Spinningspark may have contacted multiple editors off-Wikipedia about this WP:RfC to influence the WP:RfC in Spinningspark's favor? Sure. But I kept an open mind about Spinningspark not having done that. Your commentary about the recent influx is plausible. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You asked, and he replied: "Nothing to do with me. I was trying to quietly ignore the whole issue." And then instead of taking his word for it you posted two diatribes in less than an hour, dripping with implied accusation, ending one with "But as it stands..." and the other with "but still..." -- those ellipses full of innuendo. Of course you were accusing him. You think that because some admins pitch up, that means they may have been canvassed? The Signpost theory seems much more "plausible" to me. --Stfg (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

And, predictably, just because an editor sternly addresses the matter of inappropriate WP:Canvassing, that editor is accused of being WP:Uncivil. Spinningspark having stated "I was trying to quietly ignore the whole issue." and then refraining from replying any further does not inspire confidence in me that he was/is not aware of any WP:Canvassing on this matter; to me, if that comment is about the recent influx instead of the WP:RfC as a whole, it implies that while he may not have been involved in any WP:Canvassing, he may have known it was taking place. It certainly implies that WP:Canvassing crossed his mind, just like it did mine, with regard to this recent influx. My view? I did not accuse Spinningspark of a thing with regard to WP:Canvassing, and I don't care how much you or anyone else here piles up stating that I did. When I see something that can quite clearly be interpreted as fishy/sketchy going on, I often mention it; that goes for Wikipedia as well. And I don't care how uncordial mentioning/questioning it may seem. Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Full discussion here for documentation in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments since The Signpost report have only been two-to-one in favor of a change. If anyone were canvassing, then he did a rather poor job of it. I don't think we need to worry about this.

I still think that we might do better to produce a guideline based on word count than on highly variable "paragraphs". What do you think of that idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would would rather stick with the four-paragraphs guideline as a general rule, per my and others' comments on that above. It's worked well for years. Like I stated, I don't believe in fixing things that are not broken, especially based on a single bad experience. Tweaking things? Sure. I definitely think that the guideline needs to be clear about not overpacking paragraphs just to fit the four-paragraphs rule; the guideline should also perhaps do a better job at letting editors know that not exceeding four paragraphs is not always ideal. Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note. Since March 10th, which is when The Signpost report seems to have been posted, comments have been more than two-to-one in favor of a change at this point (March 14th); because of APerson's support vote on March 11th, that also slightly applies to March 12th (when WhatamIdoing made the "two-to-one" comment above). There have only been three oppose votes since March 10th. APerson numbered the posts today to help keep count. Though WP:Consensus is not solely about voting, having the support and oppose comments numbered certainly makes the WP:Consensus process easier to assess; I'm not sure that the comments that are labeled "Comment" should count as a vote, but, given what they state, they seem to (that includes my comment for being open to softening the guideline). Flyer22 (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles

Should WP:BOLDTITLE be modified to clarify the acceptability of the lead sentence of election articles? Many election articles are written with a lead sentence that may violate a strict reading of WP:BOLDTITLE. For example:

• United States presidential election, 2016 begins: The United States presidential election of 2016 will be the 58th quadrennial U.S. presidential election and is scheduled for Tuesday, November 8, 2016.
• United States presidential election, 2012 begins: The United States presidential election of 2012 was the 57th quadrennial presidential election.
• California gubernatorial election, 2014 begins: The 2014 California gubernatorial election will take place on November 4, 2014, to elect the Governor of California.
• California gubernatorial election, 2010 begins: The 2010 California gubernatorial election was held November 2, 2010 to elect the Governor of California.
• French presidential election, 2007 begins: The 2007 French presidential election, the ninth of the Fifth French Republic was held to elect the successor to Jacques Chirac as president of France for a five-year term.
• New York City mayoral election, 2013 begins: The 2013 New York City mayoral election occurred on November 5, 2013, along with elections for comptroller, public advocate, borough presidents, and members of the New York City Council.
• London mayoral election, 2012 begins: The London mayoral election of 2012 was an election held on Thursday 3 May 2012, to elect the Mayor of London, it was won by Boris Johnson of the Conservative Party.

I believe that these and similar examples from other years, states, cities, and some countries, make appropriate use of bold in lead sentences of Wikipedia articles. I would change some of them after their bolded parts, e.g.:

• California gubernatorial election, 2010: The 2010 California gubernatorial election was held November 2, 2010, to elect the Governor of California.
• French presidential election, 2007: The 2007 French presidential election, the ninth of the Fifth French Republic, was held to elect the successor to Jacques Chirac as president of France for a five-year term.
• London mayoral election, 2012: The London mayoral election of 2012 was held on Thursday 3 May 2012, to elect the Mayor of London; the winner was Boris Johnson of the Conservative Party.

The problem is that these (original or modified as I've suggested here) and thousands of related examples appear to violate this rule: "In general, if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear." But these uses of bold are too good to change. I believe the rule should be rewritten to allow this use of bold in lead sentences. Moreover, I believe that articles about specific elections should be written with a minor variation of the title in bold, and Wikipedia rules should encourage this. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment IMO, we should write the lead following the conventions of good style, and then, *if* the title of the article happens to appear, it should be bolded. These examples have been twisted in order to fit in the title. As for whether we should relax the rules to allow bolding approximations of the article title, I do that, but I don't know if formally allowing it would help avoid that problem, or make the leads even worse. — kwami (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. The aim behind WP:BOLDTITLE is to prevent distortions of the language in an attempt to get the title into the first sentence, and also to prevent seemingly random bolding of words that appear in the title. The bolding is to reinforce for the reader the topic of the article, and also to reassure the reader they have arrived at the right article for their search term, particularly if they have used an alternative term.

Where there is a slight variation between the title and the opening sentence, perhaps the question should be: why is there a variation? Sometimes the title includes a non-WP:Natural disambiguation, usually involving a parenthesis, such as Mercury (planet). The opening sentence does not include the disambiguation term, and that is understood.

In the cases above, the title is comma disambiguated - though perhaps WP:Natural disambiguation would be more appropriate, as the date is not so much a disambiguation as a fact that is an essential part of the topic - as indicated by the opening sentence. Other sources sometimes use the natural form - Britannica, CNN, presidentialelection.com.

I suppose my thinking is that if there is no clear reason why the title and opening title should be different, that editors look to harmonize them. Either the disambiguation comma is the more common form, or the natural disambiguation is. Giving readers two difference versions is perhaps not helpful. So - either change the title to match the opening sentence, or change the opening sentence to match the title, depending on which form is the most common. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that bolding like these is fine (but I'm not sure a change to the guideliene is necessary). I also agree with SilkTork that the comma disambiguated titles are odd - I never did understand why something like the 2012 United States presidential election is found at "United States presidential election, 2012". After all we don't have article titles like Kentucky Derby, 2012. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think they were just naming conventions that stuck and no one is going back to change them all. Im in gfavour of the status qupo as we dont need to bold for the sake of it. We have the infobox that is titled with the details and the page title itself.

User:David Levy had some views on this issue.Lihaas (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed with SilkTork (and with Kwamikagami that "I do that" as a WP:IAR matter when it seems to make sense to me to do so). I think it's correct to treat comma disambiguation as just another form of disambiguation, and not as a barrier to boldfacing. But in any case where YYYY Topic makes for a better lead it almost certainly makes for a better article title than Topic, YYYY, so a WP:RM would likely be in order.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  14:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe some verbage could be added to say "If a reasonably close natural language equivalent to an article title exists in the first sentence, it could also be bolded." Thus we discourage people from writing awkward sentences just to have a bolded title, but we still allow the article to have the reinforcement provided by bolding the title, and thus the way the above articles handle it seem just fine to me. --Jayron32 18:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  I agree with that concept (and I see nothing problematic about the boldface text in the election articles' leads). But I also agree with ThaddeusB that a change to the guideline's wording might not be called for.
  My concern is that "reasonably close natural language equivalent to an article title" (or similar wording) would leave too much room for interpretation. In addition to the problem that you mentioned (writing awkward sentences just to have a bolded title), users sometimes retain the natural sentence structure but insert boldface formatting wherever words from the title (or related words) appear, even when they're scattered. (See the example of The Beatles in the United States, which is based on an actual style error that remained in place for two years.)
  Given editors' propensity to overuse boldface text (with the inverse occurring practically never), it's better to err on the side of advising against it (with the knowledge that sensible exceptions will be made). —David Levy 21:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with SilkTork and SMcCandlish that the year in election articles is a form of disambiguation, which is a de jure but not a de facto barrier to boldfacing. So the rules must be changed to accommodate disambiguation titles that use a disambiguation term offset by commas or parentheses. But before proposing rule changes, I would like to clarify something. Many if not most Wikipedia election articles that do not follow the pattern I noted above suffer from a variation of the actual style error that prevailed for so long in The Beatles in the United States, by boldfacing part but not all of the title. There are over 23,000 articles with the word election in the title, and 93 of the first 100 search results have a year in the title, so this question affects a lot of articles: Are these actual style errors where the bolding should be removed from the lead sentence?
  • Philippine Senate election, 2004: The senatorial election was held in the Philippines on May 10, 2004.
  • German presidential election, 2009: An indirect presidential election was held in Germany on 23 May 2009. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are typical examples of editors applying boldface styling to whatever words from the title (or related words) they could find, purely for the sake of displaying something in bold (mistakenly perceived as a requirement). —David Levy 09:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a special rule here, per WP:CREEP. These cases are a subset of articles with descriptive titles that do not require bolding, such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers referenced in WP:LEADSENTENCE, immediately preceding MOS:BOLDTITLE. If the title fits into a sentence and is bolded, by changing the title or the sentence, that's fine, but not required. ENeville (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ban lead quotations

I propose that quotations be banned from lead sections (unless it's an article about that quotation or something). How can a quote, or extract of a quote, be Wikipedia's own summary of its article, as per "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." As per the Relative Emphasis section, how can a quote or partial quote singled out for inclusion in a lead "reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources"? In the same section, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations..." - well a quote may well be an opinion, or an extract of someone's opinion, and in what sense does it have to be covered in the remainder of the article if it is not repeated? Sighola5 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary the lead can be a good place to put a quote that assesses the overall significance of the subject. Also I think turning what is supposed to be guidance ("the lead serves as...") into mechanical rules ("we must ban...") is a bad idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A quote that assesses the overall significance of the subject, according to one person or source - but for balance and equal weight there really then should also be a quote in the lead from every other different notable view on the overall subject? Or only one viewpoint gets a quote? Sighola5 (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

For articles where there are multiple disagreeing viewpoints, it would be appropriate to have text elsewhere describing that and summarizing it in the lead. That is not the situation I was talking about. Here is what I think is a more typical example, one I added today, where there is no significant disagreement among sources but where one source happens to summarize the impact of the subject pithily: [2]. I think this kind of quote is perfectly appropriate for the lead, would be misplaced elsewhere, and should not be banned. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Well perhaps this proposal should be restricted to articles with multiple viewpoints/theories, which is of course very typical of Wikipedia. Regarding your example though, the Curtis–Hedlund–Lyndon theorem, no doubt a very fine article but it does appear to directly contravene this manual of style, in that significant information appears in the lead (i.e. that the theorem is one of the fundamental results of symbolic dynamics, as per the quote from a book review by a mathematician at a Texan university) which is not covered in the body (unless I missed some reference to its status in relation to its parent field). Sighola5 (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Absurd, oversimplified, unworkable. Even if such a restriction were only applied to "long quotations" or something, it's still not right. We don't ban particular content presentation or formatting depending on where it is in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  14:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This manual does ban (ok, "shouldn't") content from being presented in the lead if it is not covered in the body (except for trivial basic facts). Quotes are being used in a way that confounds this - not about formatting as such obviously, but that the words cannot be reworded by other editors because they are in a quote, plus they are given extra authority, but other quotes can't be added to the lead because it gets absurd. Anyway obviously ban is too strong a word. Sighola5 (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• oppose in your post of 03:00, 5 April 2014 just above you have already agreed that such a "ban" would need to have such caveats and be subject to such vagaries of interpretation so as to make it not only meaningless and not helpful in improving the encyclopedia, but rather an implicit invitation to WIKILAWYER. Plus WP:CREEP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not agree to those implications you assume, I quite obviously did not. Why not consider some actual possible wording before taking out the red pen. Lead sections are already being biased by the use of quotations not covered in the body and defended with wikilawyering, some simple wording is needed to act against that tendency on articles with multiple viewpoints. Sighola5 (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose overly-specific restrictions per WP:CREEP and discussion above. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet you haven't addressed the last point to you above, that ironically your own use of a quotation in a lead appears to be exactly an example of how they tend to be used in violation of this manual? It wouldn't be policy creep to amend the wording here so it doesn't refer to a quotation as a 'fact' (especially in topics with multiple viewpoints) nor give the impression that the point it conveys needn't be covered in the body. Sighola5 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, did you have a question to me above? I thought it looked like a statement of your opinion, not a request for mine. I already gave my opinion earlier; I see no purpose to be served here by elaborating on it further. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per pretty much what everyone has already said. --Jayron32 18:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose adding any text about this: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." If a sentence helps to do this, it's fine; if it doesn't, that sentence shouldn't be in the lead. This applies equally to a quotation as to any other kind of sentence, so there's no need to single out quotations as special cases. --Stfg (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

See reasons above why quotations are different - they can't be reworded by other editors to reflect the balance of the body, they give added authority to one viewpoint if there are multiple, and often they are inserted in the lead without being covered in the body. Sighola5 (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

They can be replaced by other editors to reflect the balance of the body; no sentence should give undue weight to one of multiple (non-fringe) viewpoints; if things are inserted in the lead that shouldn't be for any reason, take them out of course. No difference between quotations and anything else except the need to steer clear of close paraphrasing when we replace them. --Stfg (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing the actual issues here, not assumptions or the person as others so predictably are doing. The problem is that an editor then has to prove that the quotation doesn't fully reflect the body of the article in some way - it's a higher hurdle, because they can't just tweak it, they have to remove it and add their own words. And this guideline makes it higher by referring to quotations as 'facts' which don't have to be in the body. Sighola5 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose this absurd proposal, which I strongly suspect has been triggered by a discussion that took place here. Eric Corbett 19:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah. I had been wondering which content dispute this would tip the balance in favor of, but I wanted to assume good faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah so that's enough to stop assuming good faith is it? I can't possibly have left that discussion behind because I couldn't be bothered? But having seen enough there and elsewhere, think some better wording is needed for the benefit of Wikipedia? That's not possible is it, how could anyone not be a gameplaying wikipedian? But feel free to assume I'm so stupid yet so determined that I would give up my time on what would be such an absurdly obvious ploy. Sighola5 (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It is when you neglect to mention the context or background of your proposal in your opening statement. Eric Corbett 20:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps David Eppstein can speak for himself if he wants, without you stoking things up. Sighola5 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No doubt he can, I simply wanted to draw attention to your lack of transparency in initiating this proposal. Eric Corbett 22:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Robert Oppenheimer has a quotation in the lead. The quotation is well-known, and is nearly notable in its own right. Hawkeye7 (talk)

Again I do wish to amend the proposal to not be about banning quotations but to: clarify the wording in this manual so that quotations aren't referred to as 'facts' and as if the point contained in them doesn't need to be covered in the body like anything else. And I can point out that your example again seems to show a violation of this which actually supports my point - the point about him being called 'father of the bomb' is significant non-trivial information yet doesn't appear to be covered in the body of the article, unless I've missed it? Sighola5 (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Originally, the article credited Oppenheimer with the title along with Enrico Fermi, but then someone pointed out that Leó Szilárd was also called that. So we cut it back. It's referenced. It's in the title of Cynthia Kelly's book. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the phrase is mentioned in the bibliography but as I understand it, and please can someone correct me if I'm wrong, as per this manual of style, although it says quotations don't have to be repeated in the body, there should still be a sentence or paragraph within the body about Oppenheimer being called that? The source book has content to support it (e.g. reporters dubbed him that after the war, he used that status to lobby Truman). Sighola5 (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Micromanagement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Footnote 7 blatantly violates NPOV policy

Footnote 7, with the Oxford English Dictionary example, directly advises editors to violate WP:Neutral point of view, by using shamless peacock wording to make a grandiose, point-of-view-pushing claim about the subject. "Premier" in that context is simply a synonym for "best". The example is bad, and the text explaining why it's "good" is even worse.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  14:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Adverbs that give a point of view are wrong only when they are vague and badly supported. Saying that the OED is the most complete and most highly respected English dictionary is not pov-pushing, it is just stating the consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Lists in leads: deprecated?

A while ago, I converted a clumsy (in my opinion) enumeration-in-a-sentence of 10 items, spanning some 140 words, into a bullet list. This enumeration happened to be in an article lead. Some months later, this was reverted with as edit comment "Lists deprecated in leads". I can't find that deprecation here, though. Is this a MOS rule? Cheers, —Oliphaunt (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you just ask Keith-264 directly? Ibadibam (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I claim the honour of that edit. I can't remember where the deprecation is though. I think I checked with Australian Rupert if that's any help. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ibadibam: I'm asking here because if people agree, it should be on this MOS page, no?
@Keith-264: I have no idea what Australian Rupert is but I'll see if I can find out. —Oliphaunt (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings User talk:AustralianRupert is an editor who know things, I've asked him as I've forgotten who I queried the list with. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Prose is generally prefeable to lists, unless specific circumstances make the list more readable. In leads the preference for prose is even clearer. I would also remove any bullet list I saw in the lead of an article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists Australian Rupert offered this.Keith-264 (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That doesn't really speak to use in the lead. What if we say that if material in the lead is better suited for list form, it's probably an indication that it's too much detail for the lead and should be moved into the article body? Ibadibam (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes it does and items in the lead are in the body of the article, haven't you looked?Keith-264 (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't understand what you mean by "yes it does". Yes WP:EMBED does speak to use in the lead, or yes it does work to say that list-worthy content is too much detail for the lead? Ibadibam (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Come off it.Keith-264 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Ok, I'll just assume you meant the former. So if we apply the same standard to the lead as we do to the rest of the article, then lists in the lead are perfectly fine for the "appropriate uses" defined in WP:EMBED. But that doesn't seem to fit the consensus here, as both Keith-264 and Maunus object to lead lists categorically. Hence the compromise I proposed above, namely that list-worthy information should be moved to another section. A proposed guideline might read:

          Embedded lists normally shouldn't appear in the lead section. If a passage in the lead can be appropriately presented in list form, it's a good sign that it's too much detail for the general introductory text that the lead should provide, and should be moved to another section.

Does that more or less accomplish what everybody wants to accomplish? Ibadibam (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)