Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

Seeking consensus for table modification

I worked on the table that appears on MOS:LEADLENGTH, expanding it to provide editors more information based on their diverse needs. To some, article length in characters would suffice, but others like me would like more units of measurement. Therefore I present the modifications I made to seek consensus and maybe replacing the current table already in the guideline. I didn't modify the original units, I only did some copyediting and added the other units of measurement columns.

Article length in characters	Article length in words	Article length in kb	Lead length, in paragraphs
Fewer than 15,000	Fewer than 2,500	Fewer than 15	One or two
15,000–30,000	2,500–5,000	15–30	Two or three
More than 30,000	More than 5,000	More than 30	Three or four

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Notes

• Since WP:SIZERULE is about readable prose, the article length in kilobytes column is redundant on the English Wikipedia; the two would only differ significantly in a multi-byte character set like Chinese. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Change headings Any column listing KB should be relabeld to make it clear the KB size is "readable prose", and text in this section should explain what SIZERULE means by "readable prose". Under that rule, word count is irrelevant, so column two should be deleted. I tentatively like the proposal to provide some guidance on lead size in relation to overall readable prose size, but that is a rather big idea that should be well-vetted, so It took me awhile to get my brain around this since MOS:LEADLENGTH talks characters and WP:SIZERULE talks kilobytes and the WP:PROSESIZE tool reports kilobytes and words but not characters. I support deleting the character column that is now live at MOS:LEADLENGTH and replacing it with readable prose KB count (and leaving word count out altogether) so that it matches up perfectly with WP:SIZERULE and the existing report generated by the WP:PROSESIZE tool. FYI, I left a note about this useful effort (thanks) at the Vpump here . (Original comment revised) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

PS, if you can win consensus to add character or word counts at SIZERULE first, then I would support keeping (or adding) such columns here too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The change that I'd like to see is more emphasis on the "optional suggestion" aspect, and alternatives to measuring the lead's size in paragraphs. Why should three short paragraphs be "worse" than two unusually long ones? Maybe we should say 2500 words in the article = 100–500 words in the lead.

I do not support the "Article length in kb", because (a) it will be misunderstood as being the file size as shown on the history page, no matter what you say and (b) it is basically redundant to the first column, except penalizing articles that contain more non-English content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense; this will be relevant to loads of new editors, whereas WP:SIZEPLIT (the source of the SIZERULE table) will more often be a matter for experienced editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that words would be a better measure than either KB or characters (both should be dropped), and also agree that expressing lead size in words would help address the sub-optimal paragraphing often seen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, you wrote, "the two would only differ significantly in a multi-byte character set like Chinese". I didn't get your point. What two things would differ? Thinker78 (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The number of bytes and the number of characters. Wikipedia pages are rendered in UTF-8. In this character set, everyday Latin upper- and lower-case characters require a single byte, but other character sets are rendered using up to four bytes per character. See also WP:UTF-8 for examples. Characters or words (which the readers can see and count) is the appropriate measurement here rather than bytes, which would require a technical explanation and can only be counted by software. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I present an example for consideration in several proposals on this page.

In general, I always support emphasizing words of readable prose over KB, along with clarification about how readable prose size is measured. But this table has led to misapplication of the overarching principles of WP:LEAD-- "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." If a (relatively) short but comprehensive article does that best in a four-paragraph lead, we should not constrain the lead simply because an article is relatively short.

See:

• this ERRORS report, about
• Featured article L. D. Reynolds whose main author is Modussiccandi
• that got through most of its FAC with this four-paragraph lead
• but was reduced to this lead based on comments from two reviewers at the FAC.

FAC reviewers a) missed the error, b) minimized the key points of WP:LEAD, and c) focused instead on the relatively less important guidance about length.[1][2] Rather than defending the superior lead, the nominator reduced the lead to an inferior one, simply because the article had only a couple thousand words of readable prose.

If a relatively short article is comprehensive, we should not be reducing a lead which otherwise meets the more important aspects of WP:LEAD simply based on (over application of) a length guideline. This article's lead was damaged at FAC, and I've seen that more than once.

While we often emphasize that a guideline is just a guideline, to be taken with a grain of salt, they are often applied to excess. Can the wording here be adjusted to account for this problem? I am not an effective wordsmith, so don't try myself, but this is a recurring problem at FAC. In fact, the two reviewers who requested a lead reduction (Ergo Sum and The Rambling Man) had likely been subjected to same on other articles, as they tend to write shorter articles. @Ovinus: per separate discussion about reviews at FAC of leads on my talk that I haven't yet found time to reply to ... this, and lack of adequate scrutiny of leads at FAC (leading to the error on this FAC), is a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

In my limited experience the four-paragraph rule is a nice one to follow and suggests a reasonable amount of, hm, "consistency of concision" across articles. Character count and even word count are only crude instruments of determining quality and appropriateness, and I agree with Sandy that, in that instance, a longer lead was totally fine. But frankly I haven't seen enough short FACs (I tend to not review those) to know how indiscriminately or poorly this guideline has been applied. I know that I think a four-paragraph lead for The Bigg Chill, for example, a short but enjoyable article that I reviewed for GAN, would be inappropriate. I will think about it. Ovinus (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

For example, the Featured Article Hanford Site 622 words has eight paragraphs. Whereas the Featured Article Cleopatra meets the requirement by packing 1,020 words in just four. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I should add that, had the nominator challenged this over-application of a guideline, the @WP:TFA coordinators may have respected that challenge. But nominators don't always realize that ... and sometimes feel they most go along or see their FAC be unsuccessful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

"as they tend to write shorter articles". Nope. And unnecessarily speculative. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry ... it was my impression that you had written a lot of shorter articles (eg your latest FA, The Boat Race 2021), although I did not mean that to imply you hadn't written longer ones as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Which is longer than L. D. Reynolds?? This is a strange point to try to make, and in no way useful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The Boat Race 2021 is not longer in readable prose than L. D. Reynolds, but that's a tangent here (for practical purposes, they're both short articles according to this proposed table). Perhaps this is a better example for the purposes of this discussion: 1964 European Nations' Cup Final is a short article, with an appropriate three-paragraph lead. The proposed length table is an improvement in that it introduces words as measured by the prosesize scripts (rather than characters), but as a guideline, my L. D. Reynolds example is one where length was used to constrain an appropriate lead ... which did not happen at the Cup Final article. My point is that a short, comprehensive article can still have a four-paragraph lead, and we shouldn't cut the length of good leads to meet a suggested guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The tangent was the initial assertion that I'd suggested compliance with a MOS guideline because I write shorter articles which is simply not true. In any sense. Why you felt the need to make a personal judgement on my own opinion here is beside me, I've been working very hard to avoid such interactions after the way specifically you have made me feel, yet you suddenly feel the need to drag me into this? Just weird, and completely unnecessary. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A simple, "No that is not the case in my experience" would have sufficed. I'll take greater care in not soliciting your feedback in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

There was no attempt to solicit feedback, simply an attempt to call out something you personally made incorrect assumptions and assertions about, name-checking someone who has made it clear they wished to have no interaction with you in any way, shape or form, having reduced my activity in certain areas of Wikipedia specifically because of you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

User talk would be more appropriate place to explore our differences in AGF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It would have been more appropriate for you to not cast aspersions on my motivations on this talk page, especially full in the knowledge that your behaviour toward me drove me away from certain parts of the project. You already know all that. Don't turn this round on me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't like the existence of this table at all. The point of the lede is to summarize the article that follows; the point of grouping sentences into paragraphs is to organize them by their logical and conceptual relationships. Maybe a shorter article hits five separate main ideas, or maybe the flow of a longer one can be expressed in only a couple grafs. We need to stop thinking about "quantitative" metrics that provide nothing more than the illusion of objectivity and opportunities for drive-by nit-pickers to waste the time of the people building articles. The goal is clear writing, not numerical gamesmanship. XOR'easter (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. One big problem with the existing table is that it uses character counts, rather than readable prose size, so I support the addition of readable prose if the table is kept. But the bigger problem may begin with the introductory wording: The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. Maybe, sometimes. But I believe the L. D. Reynolds FA example above presents a counterexample, and I suggest a comprehensive short article may warrant a longer lead than this table suggests, based on the more important principles of a good lead. I don't know how to fix the wording to reflect this, but just dropping the table still leaves us with the same problem, because it's also in the wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternate idea: thinking aloud, more work needed.

I am in agreement with the gist of what both XOR'easter and WhatamIdoing present above, and yet some sort of semi-numerical guidance (tempered with all the disclaimers) is needed to address those situations (like Hanford Site) where apparently novice editors are chunking new text into the lead rather than the body. This is often a problem in underdeveloped leads (and Hanford Site is only listed as an FA because no one has sent it to WP:FAR yet-- it appears abandoned and outdated).

What comes to mind is to do something like what is done at WP:ELNO:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article.

That is, WP:ELNO qualifies the statement to what the article should become when fully developed. This makes sense to me as a medical editor because it would be OK to have a fully developed lead that covers everything at WP:MEDORDER, even if that content isn't yet fully developed in the body; that is, the lead could be well written yet disproportionate length-wise to what is in the (as yet underdeveloped) body. The lead in a fully developed, comprehensive article should not be artificially constrained but on the other hand, neither should it be allowed to sprawl like Hanford Site. An underdeveloped article might have a correctly written longer lead when measured proportionally, as may a relatively short article.

What if we dropped the table and the para suggestions, and suggested (loose) percentage ranges of overall measurable prosesize in the lead instead? I've looked at the dense medical FAs I write, and others like J. K. Rowling, as well as several other FAs mentioned on this page, and although we might get a bot to look at a bigger sample of FAs, we might suggest instead that fully developed long FAs tend to have leads that are in the range of 5% of overall word count measured by readable prose, while shorter or underdeveloped articles are around 11% of their prosesize in the lead, with medium-sized articles somewhere in between. I realize this leaves us with just another artificial numerical measure, which XOR objects to, but it wouldn't artificially constrain paragraphs, and it could provide (if we had more data) broader ranges to play with, while accounting for the article's development via its assessment.

Samples:

Longer FAs

• Dementia with Lewy bodies, 413/9004, 4.6% of total readable prose is in the lead
• Tourette syndrome, 409/7435, 5.5% of total readable prose is in the lead
• J. K. Rowling, 464/8820, 5.3% of total readable prose is in the lead

Shorter FAs

• 1964 European Nations' Cup Final, 273/2439, 11% of total readable prose is in the lead
• L. D. Reynolds, 299/2323, was at 12.9% before cut at FAC, currently at 194/2219 8.7% (I suggest 11% would have been acceptable)

Medium-size listed as FA, but not at standard

• Hanford Site, 624/4970, 12.5% of total readable prose in the lead (again, perhaps 10% is a better target)

GA sample presented by Ovinus

• The Bigg Chill, 71/895, 7.9%

Just an idea to experiment with ... more data on a larger sample of FAs would be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

If we are to present suggested percentage ranges, then this sounds like a good way to develop them — survey the FAs, remove the stale ones from the sample, and use those figures to get a sense of what a satisfactory balance might be. I'm not yet convinced that semi-numerical guidance of this sort is necessary or sufficient to handle novice editors are chunking new text into the lead rather than the body. Novice editors do that just because the lead is what they see first. The choice to excise those chunks or migrate them into the body (if they aren't redundant there) can be made with a conceptual judgment call without running "readable prose size" numbers. (Typical edit summary: "way too detailed for the intro, which is meant to be a concise overview" or "these details already present in the appropriate section below".) XOR'easter (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A nice person who knows how might run the data, but I'm not sure anyone has implemented a readable prose size script since Dr pda used to present the charts on longest and shortest articles at Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics. And we'd have to throw out the outliers: eg, Douglas MacArthur should not be where it is, and reducing the wordiness at Bob Dylan has been on my ToDo list forever. I'd also like to come up with an example of an underdeveloped medical article (body) that nonetheless has a correct lead summary that hits all the main points; that is, lead disproportionate to the body and yet a correctly written lead for where it should be if at featured comprehensiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I've found the medical example I'm seeking: arthritis. The article is under-developed (listiness), so readable prose size comes in at only 2733 words. And yet the lead is fairly well developed, at 253 words. So the proportion is 253/2733, which at 9.25% would seem to be, if we only employed numerical measures too high. Yet it is almost where it should be/would be if we consider, as in WP:ELNO, "what the article would contain if it became a featured article". A featured medical article typically needs at least 400 words in the lead to summarize all the elements at WP:MEDORDER, which make (most) medical articles comprehensive. So arthritis is an example where we would not make the claim that the lead is too long based on the size of the readable prose in the body. What I'm after is some way of coming up with wording something like the wording at ELNO to avoid arbitrarily cutting leads based on a numerical measure, and look instead at where the article would be/should be if better developed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I can see some advantages to percentage-based rule, but it will not work on very brief/incomplete articles. One might say "5 to 15%, depending upon how complete the article is", but even this will be too low a percentage for some articles. Try that calculation on List of Leeteuk performances: the readable prose size is basically equivalent to the lead. But if you raise the percentage to accommodate Start- and List-class articles, you'll end up providing basically no useful guidance to FAs.

I think we should instead be suggesting word counts, as that will depend less upon the amount of existing text and more on what it takes to summarize a subject well. The suggestions could be very broad, e.g., 100–300 words for shorter articles/simpler subjects, 200–600 for longer articles/complex subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a word count would work, although we may need more data to develop this. Just from experience, for example, I know a medical condition requires 300 to 450 words for an adequate summary of the items that should be included in an optimal, comprehensive lead, using the suggested items at WP:MEDORDER. This paragraph restriction is resulting in poor leads, with info shoved arbitrarily into a certain number of paras, and word counts may be a better way to go. We need data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The word counts for WPMED-tagged FAs are listed at User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox#WPMED FAs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Perfect! I can make a statistical analysis with that data. Thinker78 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think List of Leeteuk performances may not really follow the intention of MOS:LEAD. Possibly some content should be moved from the lead to the body of the article, because the lead is basically acting like the main content of the article, which practically only has tables. Therefore it may not be a practical example of the point you were making. Thinker78 (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Having the "body" be entirely a list is typical of Wikipedia:Featured lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably lists then need a special guideline for lead length. Thinker78 (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Or just "the lead for a list can be any length". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Would 400 words be only for featured medical articles or for featured articles in general? Thinker78 (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think @SandyGeorgia was specifically referring to medical articles. There is some variation by subject. I would not be surprised if the pages in Category:FA-Class Tropical cyclone articles ran a bit shorter than some or if pop culture articles had more variability than others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Generally agree ... a medical lead is a fairly well defined thing in terms of what it needs to cover to be comprehensive. And hurricanes are often shorter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• IMO there should be no formulaic guideline for lead length based on article length. A nuanced and humanistic guideline would say make it no longer, or shorter, than is required to comply with the LEAD guideline. It's the difference between traffic lights on timers, and round about circles. Top down vs. bottom up. -- GreenC 04:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft for table modification

I have been working on a proposal for a new lead size guidance taking as basis general writing principles, Wikipedia guidance, and the input of editors who are contributing in the thread. I created a page (Draft:MOS:LEADLENGTH table modification) for community discussion while I work on it to hopefully achieve a consensus proposal that can be accepted for inclusion in the guideline. Everyone is welcome to discuss any issues about it in its talke page. --Thinker78 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, NewsAndEventsGuy , WhatamIdoing, SandyGeorgia , Ovinus, The Rambling Man, XOR'easter , Green Thinker78 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

In your mind, what is the #1 most serious short=coming in the current text? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Whatever is happening at the draft page, I can't decipher which table is being proposed, and it's way too much information to think anyone will read it at the guideline page. And I disagree on the "short paragraph"ing stuff, as it just creates another "rule" people will misunderstand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, when I started the thread I just wanted to add extra columns that reflected the information of the original table, but as the thread shows, the #1 most serious shortcoming in the current text apparently is that it doesn't satisfy editors' needs or desires as other guidelines. This is reflected in edition of pages where editors don't care much about the current lead size guideline. Maybe the current LEADLENGTH guidance doesn't reflect a community consensus. Thinker78 (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Re it doesn't satisfy editors' needs or desires as other guidelines Assuming this vague criticism to be true, what is the #1 deficiency in your opinion? Please be specific so I don't have to ask you to articulate the #1 problem you want to fix for a third time? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, sorry, I fixed it and added explanation of its purpose. Thinker78 (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to not be pinged on this discussion again. I was originally pinged in bad faith by someone who knew I was doing my best to avoid interactions with, and yet she went on regardless to make false assertions about me and my motivations. I've been working very hard to avoid these kinds of "interactions" yet clearly some users here just want to level up on the drama. Not for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy play nice or you don't get cookies.--Thinker78 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm in the process of analyzing this thread because editors have different concerns. The #1 problem in my opinion is that the guidance for the size of the lead and the paragraphs may not reflect a community consensus. Thinker78 (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

But I am playing nice; I would happily write out your opinion (see WP:Writing for the opponent) but the only thing I know for sure is that you think there is a problem with the existing text. By way of analogy, a custom home builder should never build the house without a blueprint and never draw up a blue print without a clear understanding of the client's needs and goals. By writing up a draft before there is a bulleted list of concisely-stated issues to be "fixed", I think you are doing the process backwards. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

You got it wrong. The reason why I put a page in the draft space is to build a draft blueprint with community input while analyzing and brainstorming. I have seen multiple times editors who don't like the current guideline and their comments stating so and if you read above there is some evidence of that. Unfortunately I haven't had much input or none in the draft talk page, although I will continue analyzing the comments posted in this thread by editors, because I haven't finished doing it. The plan is, after building a final draft blueprint, to present it in this talk page for a final phase seeking community approval before adding it to the guideline. But as I stated previously, the current guideline may or may not reflect community consensus, so I understand that what I am working on may or may not be approved by the community. Thinker78 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

AFC isn't for that sort of material, so I tagged it as misc for deletion, but I'm ok with it being "userfied" and moved to your userspace. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Update1

I have put some significant work on the lead guidance modification, even though I understand it may not be adopted. It would be great if some editors provide some feedback so far for the draft (extended content needs conciliation yet), but I clarify it is still a work in progress and that I also need to finish analyzing the discussion in this thread. Thinker78 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I have come up with an option [Draft:MOS:LEADLENGTH table modification#New recommended lead length guideline]. Feedback anyone? WhatamIdoing, SandyGeorgia? --Thinker78 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78, I see a lot of tables and descriptive statistics – an impressive amount of work, and I hope you will move that out of Draft: space at some point, so it can be preserved – but I don't see specific recommendation in that section. That is, it describes what people have done, but a recommendation is about what people should do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing thanks for the recognition! I am working out some tables to choose a replacement for the current one in the guideline if the community so decides. You are welcome to give me feedback about it. The one that is ready for review is the Option 1 table. Thinker78 (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

In Option 1, I don't think we should encourage five-word leads, or even single-sentence leads. I think the lead should be a minimum of two sentences, which might mean as little as 25 words (but could be ~50 words). I understand that a "snippet" in Google search (the text shown under the link, so you can decide whether you want to click on it) can be a maximum of 320 characters long (including spaces and punctuation), and I think articles should take full advantage of that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I like the "Lead words" column, but I wonder if this is the full range. I'd much rather see the range minus outliers, and then rounded off generously. Perhaps then 5–225 would become 50–200 words, 360-520 would become 400–500 words, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I took out the outliers per your advice. Thinker78 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Reason why I wrote a minimum of 5 words is because establishing a minimum is more subjective and difficult to determine in the first paragraph than the maximum. I wasn't sure what to place as minimum in the first paragraph, so I took into account the advise of the professional writer in one of the references and placed 5 words, thinking about the minimum words necessary to give a definition and work from there. Thinker78 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at "Option 2", I don't think we want to recommend more than 1,000 words for the lead.

As a point of reference, a normal newspaper article is around 300 words, and a classic "feature length" article is 600 article. An adult who reads English very well can read about 300 words per minute (slower for complicated subjects, unfamiliar words, etc.). We should probably keep the recommended lead length closer to one or two minutes. It should not take five minutes to read the introduction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

In a long lead, is it good practice for the first, short para to be a summary of the rest?

I've done this in articles with long leads, so that the main points are presented up front where the drive-by reader will see them. Sometimes a lead may only have 3-4 paragraphs, but they're rather long and technical, and could lose the casual reader. However, I don't see anything in the MOS that states this explicitly; I've inferred it from best practice in writing a section of an article. Should we say something explicit, or is the need for a summary para in the lead an indication that the lead as a whole needs to be reduced?

The article that made me think to look here was fetal heartbeat bill. Most news sources have decided to avoid that phrase because it's intentionally inaccurate. That IMO is a basic piece of info that belongs in the first paragraph, to explain why there are competing terms. Another editor argued that we're not allowed to duplicate information in the lead, and so they merged the entire medical para, which had been at the bottom of the lead, into the introductory paragraph. That, IMO, makes the intro rather opaque and the article less accessible.

Do we need to avoid repeating info in the lead, or can it be good practice to create an intro paragraph that presents key points of the lead, which in turn presents in more detail the key points of the article? — kwami (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It will depend on the article, but I think in the case of large articles about complex subjects, a one paragraph summary of the lead would be appropriate. - Donald Albury 20:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Without addressing the OP's example article, from the perspective of mobile readers, this practice may by more beneficial than is immediately obvious. Infoboxes are not collapsed on mobile, and are presented between the first paragraph of the lead and the remainder. On my device, our article on the Tao Te Ching inserts six full scrolls of infobox information immediately following the opening paragraph (including the lead image; five and a half screens of infobox excluding the image). The lead is not particularly long, so the idea of the opening paragraph serving as a very high level summary benefits the readability of a larger set of articles on mobile. Folly Mox (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that, but I think it's something we should be aware of as editors and IMO should be mentioned explicitly in the MOS. — kwami (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No. Our guideline is stated in WP:NOTLEDE: Wikipedia leads are not written in news style. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not the issue here. We're not talking about reducing the lead to news-style length and content, but rather how to the structure the lead. I'm also not advocating that irritating practice in some scientific writing of preceding the introduction with an abstract that is then repeated verbatim in the introduction. I agree that would be horrible practice for WP. I'm thinking instead of succinctly mentioning the key points at top, then expanding on them in the rest of the lead. That's not news style, it's just good writing. — kwami (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I recently saw this edit by Herostratus (talk · contribs) which is relevant. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's the kind of thing I mean. In that case it follows LEADSENTENCE, but goes further by making it a separate paragraph. In the article I came here from, the first paragraph would be more than just the lead sentence. — kwami (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The guideline already has advice regarding this. Check MOS:LEADSENTENCE and MOS:OPEN. Thinker78 (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Neither addresses this issue. The reason for the edit I came here for was the idea that we're not allowed to repeat information in the lead. That doesn't seem to be addressed one way or the other. — kwami (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that my position on the changes I made or the article are being correctly explained here. The article is not particularly long, nor is the lead. The information may be considered somewhat complicated but not like what we might consider complicated for encyclopedia information, dark matter for example. But unlike dark matter, the confusion regarding a fetal heartbeat is easily explained in the body of the article and the information that is now contained in the lead is a better summary than saying, "...claim that a 'fetal heartbeat' can be detected though at this point there is no fetus, no heart, and no heartbeat" and then waiting till the final para to explain what that might mean. I consider this more like journalistic catchy opening copy and not encyclopedic writing. As for my position being that we are not "allowed" to duplicate copy in the lead, this editor is using my quickly written edit note and ignoring my talk page note where I did not even mention what we are "allowed" to do. Sectionworker (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you'd changed your mind. Anyway, the question here is not what we should do in any particular article, but whether an opening summary may sometimes be a good approach to the lead.

(Even if the MOS is changed, I'm not going to say, 'See! MOS agrees with me! You have to accept my edit!' I started this thread in response to your initial statement that my edit was 'not allowed', and a positive response would've been necessary but not sufficient to argue for it -- as you've noted, there's more involved than whether 'it's allowed'. But the question goes beyond the details of that article. It's a general policy question.)

I've crafted lots of leads this way, with the vague feeling that I was supported by the MOS. I was surprised to find that I couldn't find any obvious MOS support for what I've been doing. — kwami (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Please let's not drag this out into a long argument that the other editors must put up with. I never said the information was "not allowed" per any sort of Wikipedia rule as you keep quoting me. I said the information must not be be used twice in the lead of that particular article. If you must go on with this do it on the article talk page or my talk page. Sectionworker (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Um, then don't bring that up here? You're arguing over the difference between "not allowed" and "must not"? I shouldn't have used quotation marks just now -- my bad -- but this is a quibble over nothing. — kwami (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with Sectionworker in that we shouldn't continue this conversation here if it applies to all articles and not just one. Also, this is not about dragging or not dragging, because discussions are about seeking a proper informed consensus. I have actually encountered a few times editors who for one reason or another are very eager to close discussions instead of properly seek consensus. I don't understand why Sectionworker would try to end the discussion when it's not even a week old. So I encourage to continue the discussion here if it's about the lead and also pertains to articles in general and not just to one page. Besides, I am also interested in further clarification of this thread.--Thinker78 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC

I would like to continue the discussion as well as long as it sticks to WP guidelines and thoughts on mentioning information twice in the lead and not whether I said it's not "allowed" per MOS. Sectionworker (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

— kwami, you wrote, “Sometimes a lead may only have 3-4 paragraphs, but they're rather long and technical, and could lose the casual reader. However, I don't see anything in the MOS that states this explicitly”. I disagree with you, the MOS actually states this explicity in MOS:INTRO, ”Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article […] avoid difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols […] Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader.“ Thinker78 (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that supports the 2nd option I presented: "the need for a summary para in the lead [may be] an indication that the lead as a whole needs to be reduced." But it doesn't address the question here, which is "is it good practice for the first, short para to be a summary of the rest?" A couple editors here have presented situations where that may be good practice even in a lead that properly follows INTRO.

I think perhaps the MOS should mention "the idea of the opening paragraph serving as a very high level summary", as user:Folly Mox put it, but also warn that the need for such a summary may be an indication that the lead is overly lengthy or specific and should be rewritten per INTRO. Otherwise I could see the presence of an intro paragraph resulting in a lack of restraint in the rest of the lead. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

— kwami I am focusing in the other thread for the time being so I may not respond to this thread for a while.Thinker78 (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

— kwami, I have analyzed your question deeply and for a few hours. Here is my opinion.

1.Do we need to avoid repeating info in the lead? MOS:LEADCITE, "the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body [of the article]".

2.Do we need to avoid repeating info in the first paragraph of the lead that is in the rest of the lead? Not necessarily. MOS:CONTEXTLINK states, "Exactly what provides the context needed to understand a given topic varies greatly from topic to topic." We can similarly say, "Exactly what should or should not be repeated in the first paragraph may vary greatly from topic to topic or from page to page."

MOS:LEAD states, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read." It is my experience as a reader of Wikipedia that mostly I only read the first paragraph, and even only the first sentence, when I am trying to find out what is something or who is someone. Having this in mind, I think that the idea of a lead of the lead of an article is good, specifically when the lead is long.

Following the spirit of MOS:LEAD, the first paragraph could serve as an introduction to long leads and a summary of their most important contents, even repeating information that is in the rest of the lead if necessary. All these respecting MOS:FIRST, MOS:BEGIN, and MOS:LEADREL—among other relevant guidelines—within the frame of Wikipedia:Consensus, which may mean that in the end such format may or may not be accepted in some articles. Thinker78 (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Add sentence about wikipedia "Previews"

Wikipedia "Previews" are the text shown in a popup box when hovering over a link to another page. These popups always show the first paragraph of a page. This manual should make clear that the first paragraph has special priority within wikipedia and is the only info seen if one doesn't click through to a page. The void century (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that the first paragraph is specially important and that this fact should be mentioned in the guideline. Not only due to the hovering popup, but also most readers probably only read the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@The void century, you might also be interested in what Folly Mox said early about the display of the leads and infoboxes on the mobile site (about half of the English Wikipedia's page views). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion of interest

There is currently a discussion over at WP:SHIPS over how the project handles some disambiguators and whether the project’s practice should be brought in line with the guidance at MOS:FIRST or it should be an exception. Comments are invited here. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI pinpoint cite to the discussion appears to be Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Broader_issue NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCLUTTER

Here's a great example of how NOT to write a first sentence, from the Teutonic Order article:

The Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem (official names: Latin: Ordo domus Sanctae Mariae Theutonicorum Hierosolymitanorum; Italian: L'Ordine dei Fratelli della Casa Tedesca di Santa Maria a Gerusalemme; Spanish: Orden de Hermanos de la Casa Alemana de Santa María en Jerusalén; French: Ordre des Frères de la Maison allemande de Sainte Marie à Jérusalem; German: Orden der Brüder vom Deutschen Haus der Heiligen Maria in Jerusalem; Dutch: Orde van de Broeders van het Duitse Huis van Sint-Maria in Jeruzalem; Polish: Zakon Szpitala Najświętszej Marii Panny Domu Niemieckiego w Jerozolimie), commonly known as the Teutonic Order (German: Deutscher Orden, Deutschherrenorden or Deutschritterorden), is a Catholic religious order founded as a military order c. 1190 in Acre, Kingdom of Jerusalem. CUA 27 (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

But it is beautiful!! Thinker78 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Alt. names and transgender/deadnaming

Would it be reasonable in the Alternative Names section for cases of transgender individuals where their deadname was known enough/notable to be included under WP:DEADNAME, that while including the deadname is still fine, but normal bolding from a redirect should be held back except in the most extreme cases? For example, the case I started from is Maddy Thorson, where her deadname is notable but not extensively, so while its still a search term and should be in the lede, doesn't need to be highlighted. The same would likely go for The Wachowskis, where their first names were likely not as household compared to "The Wackowskis", so there's no need to bold their original names. But on the other hand, both the original names for Elliot Page and Caitlyn Jenner are household, well beyond the DEADNAME minimum threshold, and thus bolding their original names make sense.

The idea is that for those where the deadname should be mentioned but which lack the wide-scale recognition, we don't need to be calling out that name by bolding it, just letting it sit as normal in the lede. Masem (t) 03:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that if the name is significant enough for a redirect, it is significant enough for bolding. If it's not significant enough for bolding, then perhaps there ought not be a redirect. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Input needed about first sentence in article

Please comment in the RfC about the first sentence in Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC about boldfacing of the scientific names of organisms

I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#RfC on boldfacing of scientific names in articles about organisms. The discussion should take place there, not here, in order to keep the discussion centralized. The result may affect MOS:BOLDSYN. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Rfc about modifying leadcite template

There is a discussion about modifying the text of the leadcite template in Template talk:Leadcite comment. Your input is welcomed. Thinker78 (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

What do you do if there is no lead?

Zaloni doesn't have one and there's not really any text already there that I can work with. The source I was using to add to the article doesn't help for general information because it's mostly PR doublespeak. And most of the article isn't much better.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the "Overview" section could largely be repurposed as a lead section. While you're at it you might take a quick look to see if you think it meets WP:NCORP. That's nothing specific about this company, more of a general consideration for corp articles where you're having trouble finding independent sources. --Trovatore (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I just moved the overview section to the lead and I noticed one of the sentences worked as the first sentence.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Why not spell it lede?

I've seen this spelling many times, probably from British editors. It helps distinguish from other meanings of the word "lead" so I use it even though I'm American.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Nooo! It's Americans who mostly do this, and as usual blame any linguistic quirks they don't like on the British. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

As I recall, the "lede" spelling was pretty popular on en.wiki talk pages a decade or so ago, but someone pointed out that it's specifically newspaper jargon, and means something rather different from what an introductory paragraph/section means in encyclopedic writing. --Trovatore (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:NOTLEDE and WP:NOTALEDE for the discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Claims of the difference between a journalistic lead and a (very short) encyclopedic lead have been exaggerated on wiki. Usually, when an editor says "But journalistic leads hide information", I find that they haven't figured out the difference between a headline and the lead, or they think that it means doing things that your journalism prof tells you not to do (e.g., bury the lead – something that is characteristic of academic writing, not newspapers). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Information in lead never mentioned in text of article

Am I correct in thinking that the lead should not contain significant information that is never mentioned in the text of an article? Skimming quickly through the MOS now I don't see any such admonition, but may have missed it.

National Abortion Federation is in the news today, with an important article in the Washington Post, and people will be searching there. I think what must have happened is that this had been simply a stub with no lead, until February 2021 when an editor added a new section about Canada, which converted the entire stub to what appears to be a lead. In any event, the entire article badly needs updating and rewriting. (Don't look at me — I know nothing about the subject; and after getting in trouble several times as a noob, I've long restricted myself to spelling and grammar, and adding links.) Milkunderwood (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Sort of. But this "rule" needs to be interpreted with common sense, which it sometimes isn't. For example, in an article about a painting, the dimensions need to be in the lead, probably the first para, but it is foolish to then repeat them in the body just for the sake of it. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Good counter-example — thanks. I still think it could useful for this Lead MOS to include (unless I did miss it) a brief discussion of what should usually not be in the lead. In my eclectic rummaging I've noticed a few such problems. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If somebody adds content to the lead that is not in the body, I often migrate it down to the article body. Particularly if the content is cited. Praemonitus (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Milkunderwood, I think this is covered under MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE: "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." So "significant" information should be in both the lead and the body, but "not everything" needs to be in both places. Determining whether a given claim is "significant" is the difficult bit, and naturally the MOS provides no advice on that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for finding this MOS, which specifies what Johnbod and Praemonitus had suggested. I appreciate your looking back to a query from last August. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes and no. In the article's "ideal form", so to speak, there should be no significant information in the lead that isn't also referenced in the body, since the lead's purpose is to summarize the body. But since the lead is the most prominent part of the article, drive-by editors will sometimes add something important to the subject there and not in the body; in that case it might make more sense to add it to the body rather than to remove it from the lead. (Although you can also do both, if it is significant but not lead-worthy.) And there are a small number of exceptions, things that belong in the lead but not the body - the most relevant is prominent alternative names, which must be in the lead for navigation purposes (so editors know they arrived at the correct article) but may not necessarily need to be elaborated on in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  Shouldn't alternate names also be supported by reliable sources? Otherwise, how do we know that an alternative name that is added to the article is legitimat? I know that it is rare that we have a list of alternate names gathered up tidily in one source, as at Sabacola#cite_note-2, but I think alternate names should be sourced. - Donald Albury 23:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the National Abortion Federation article is still unaddressed, and trying to fix it is way above my pay grade. I'm convinced that it had been a stub with no lead, concerning the U.S. organization, and when an editor added a new section on its presence in Canada, it converted the entire stub to what is now a lead. This makes the article a nonsensical mess. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there no guidance on Lead duplication of Infobox ?

Is there no guidance re the relationship of lead and infobox content ??? Both of them are to be summaries of the important items of the topic, but I was surprised nothing is said in either MOS:LEAD or MOS:IB about how they are to get along or a balance of their respective content.

The only guidance I saw in MOS:LEAD for infoboxes was a sidenote in the placement guidance MOS:LEADORDER : " Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article, "

This interest came up from a TALK in Pound sterling noting the article starts with detailing of ISO code, abbreviation, symbols, and compound noun forms. To me this seemed poor narrative of redundant restating the Template:Infobox currency which is immediately alongside the lead. And almost all of the List of circulating currencies seem to start with the same sort of lead. It doesn't seem to be from a guidance of MOS:CURRENCY, or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, or a TALK in archives...

More than just currencies though, I am surprised there is not something at a general level talking about lead and infobox content... have I missed something ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Other than a possible synchronization issue for updated data, why would it be a problem? The summary content in the lead gets duplicated in the article body anyway. The infobox data will probably get migrated to wikidata at some point. Praemonitus (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It is largely a question -- the redundant statements right next to each other looked like poor narrative in currency articles, and I simply found no guidance about how the two 'summaries' should relate -- should a lead contain the same information as the infobox right next to it ??? Then what's the point of having an IB ??? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy pages say, but generally everything that is lead-worthy should be in the lead, and we should not worry if it repeats stuff in the infobox, which many readers never look at (though others seem to never look at anything else). Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOX: an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Praemonitus, I think that this comment above about the Teutonic Order is the best answer for your question about why it would be a problem to repeat everything that's in the infobox in the text of the lead. Some articles handle that >100-word mess by sticking it in the infobox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ending the first paragraph with a colon

If the first paragraph of an article ends with a colon intended to lead into a quotation template, and if that article has an infobox or image, then the mobile display will put the infobox or image above that quotation in a way that will make no sense when the article is read top to bottom (for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duck_test&oldid=1105847402).

Should MOS:OPEN caution against doing this? It feels like it might be technically bad practice even outside of mobile use, as breaking the key information of a paragraph into two paragraphs, one of them a quotation, goes against MOS:OPEN's list of what "the first paragraph" should be doing. (I'd assume that the API and tools like Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups would consider the quotation to be a separate, second paragraph, rather than part of the first; it's clearly what Wikipedia's mobile code for where to put the infobox is doing.) Lord Belbury (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Folly Mox, do you want to write a section about the mobile site? This is the third separate problem that someone's brought up in the last couple of months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Idealogical descriptors in lead sentence

This discussion on WP:BLPN might be of interest to some people here. Connormah (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Juan_Sebastián_Elcano#RfC_on_bolding

I invite editors who are more or less fluent in MOS to participate in this discussion on a relatively simple dispute. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Compare the readability of first sentence with Britannica

Hi all. I just want to draw your attention to the Manual of Style readability of the first sentence. Specifically, I want to highlight the article about Mother Teresa in Wikipedia and in Britannica [3]. No idea what the manual of style of this latter source is. But I am thinking something is amiss in their page or to be more objective, it is not of my personal liking. Thinker78 (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Ref styles changes, to article leads

An RFC here, has been opened. In relation to article leads. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

LEADLANG and number of languages

MOS:LEADLANG says "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses". It is my experience, however, that sometimes more than one foreign name is closely associated with a concept. For example, in the context of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Polish language is the main foreign one, but arguments have been made for Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ruthenian and Latin in various contexts. A quick glance at Stanisław Leszczyński (Polish name) shows Lithuanian and French used in lead (since Lithuanian is pretty standard for kings of PLC, and he was also associated with France). Stephen Báthory (English name) also lists Polish, Lithuanian and Hungarian (he was from Hungary). Sigismund III Vasa uses an English name, and lists Polish and Lithuanian in the lead. Etc. We need to decide if those articles all fail MoS or LEADLANG needs some rewording. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think LEADLANG needs rewording for the motive you say. Per MOS:LEADCLUTTER, Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere.

Many articles do not follow MOS standards. Even feature articles sometimes fail in a thing or two of the Manual of Style. But not because many articles are subpar we are going to establish a subpar guideline, unless the community determines that it is not subpar. Thinker78 (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not happy about these edits by Thinker78, but I'm not sure how to fix them.

• Some of wording is a bit verbose - "a single foreign language equivalent name can and is encouraged to be included in the lead sentence". Could this be "foreign language equivalent name can and should be included"? Or is "should" too strong?
• "an article about a person who do not write their name in English. Or an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country." is just bad grammar. I agree with the principal of including "person" but perhaps we should split into two sentences with one example of each. The current layout seems very awkward.

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Pls stop language spam in leads. Massive readability accessibility problem.Moxy- 00:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)