Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

If the lead is excerpted to another article should it be cited?

I tend to think yes as few readers of the other article would know that they would need to click through to the lead and then go down to the body to verify the info Chidgk1 (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think article sections should ever be excerpted, if only because of potential format differences between the two articles. The editors shouldn't need to revise one article in order to satisfy the format and citation requirements of the other. That technology should be dumped. Praemonitus (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 do you have good examples of this in action? I agree that clicking through to another article is problematic for citing, but I think a caution against this practise would be better than forcing another article’s lead to be filled with cites. — HTGS (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

My question is not about whether a lead should be excerpted - my question is whether a lead which is already excerpted should be cited.

For some time I have been gradually bring articles related to Climate change in Turkey up to good standard. As you can imagine there is quite a lot of overlap in the subjects, so I have used some excerpts so that info can more easily be kept up to date in future.

At Talk:Gas in Turkey/GA2 @AirshipJungleman29 asked me what I thought of WP:LEADCITE. My opinion at the moment is that it ought to give guidance on whether leads which are excerpted should be cited. I think the guidance should say there ought to be cites but I don't think it should be mandatory. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

This also happens in COVID-19 articles.

The "receiving" article will not be able to achieve GA or FA status unless those paragraphs are cited. Whether the extracted information is correct is more important than whether the citations are visible in the receiving article, but visible citations will be required to pass certain processes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

They always have the option to do a copy/paste of the text and cite that up. There shouldn't be a need to force an article to cite up a lead merely to satisfy the requirements of a different article. Praemonitus (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree....should copy paste and add sources.... that in theory should already be in the article body. Transclusion isn't a good thing for most articles of higher quality H:TRANSDRAWBACKS Moxy- 02:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

These opinions on transclusion are just personal opinions, but it is a bit of a problem. WhatamIdoing is correct about GA and FA, and my preference is for copy, paste and customise. It is seldom that a lead section is exactly suitable for a summary section, and as it is likely to change, may get even less suitable over time without anyone noticing directly. I say this as having done a lot of these copy, paste and customise edits. I feel that transclusion is best suited to material that is specifically composed for transclusion, where it is specifically desirable that the transcluded content is identical in each use case, and where it makes sense to have all necessary citations embedded in the original, so that they transclude along with the text. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"This article is about"

I was wondering what people thought about starting an article with This article discusses as Transgender history in Finland does. I was going to change it but saw it was a GA so wasn't sure what I should do. I haven't come across any other examples of this. PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 22:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Ranks in the bottom of lead phrases along with "famous for" and "best known for".—Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

(1) In this particular article, I think it serves a useful purpose, because the next paragraph (although in the lede) is rather long and detailed;

(2) "This article is about" is also standard disambiguation template {'About|") as at the top of War of 1812

This page is about the conflict in North America from 1812 to 1815. For the Franco–Russian conflict, see French invasion of Russia. For other uses of this term, see War of 1812 (disambiguation).

created by typing {{about|the conflict in North America from 1812 to 1815|the Franco–Russian conflict|French invasion of Russia|other uses of this term|War of 1812 (disambiguation)}} —— Shakescene (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The {{about}} hatnote is fine. The OP was commenting on the lead sentence. —Bagumba (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence should be about the topic not the article. A good analogy is list articles, where MOS:FIRST says do not introduce ... as ... "This list of Xs", ie by analogy do not introduce the article as "This article ...". Ideally the first sentence would be something like "Transgender history in Finland dates back to the earliest records in the 1800s ...", but if that is awkward, reword it and remove the bold format, along the lines of the examples in MOS:REDUNDANCY and MOS:AVOIDBOLD. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

If that lead sentence were a physical artefact, its marketing would brand it as "craft", "rustic", or "rough and ready". It certainly gets the job done for the reader, but I'm sure the article can be summarised with greater elegance. Folly Mox (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:REFERS, "Avoid constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreeing with everyone else above, and noting that a one-person review (GA) is not a reason to not edit articles, I have. There is nothing about being a GA that means one should not repair the obvious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is about is a self-reference that should not be seen in any article, far less a GA. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Based on the opionions here, I have added: Avoid "This article is..." or "This list is...": the first sentence should be about the topic not the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I reverted. There was already very similar guidance and the addition of "first sentence is not about the article" is not something I agree with. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: first sentences should be defining

Inspired by @Aquillion's thread on the NPOV noticeboard, I think we should amend MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, changing the fourth item from:

One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.

to:

One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective, contentious, or non-defining terms.

(change in bold)

As a quick reminder:

A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.

The guidance on definingness was written for categorization, but I think it is good advice for first sentences of biographies too, because the first sentence should also focus on describing how the subject is commonly and consistently referred to.

Definingness is already associated with lead sections:

if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;

This proposal would strengthen that association.

By asking editors to avoid non-defining terms, we address the problem of subjects being introduced as philanthropists, criminals, authors, and such, where those may be verifiable and even significant descriptors, but fall short of being what the subject is generally known for.

Problematic examples:

• Chris Moyles: Christopher David Moyles (born 22 February 1974) is an English radio and television presenter, author and presenter of The Chris Moyles Show on Radio X. He's written a couple of autobiographies, but he's not known as an author.
• John C. Malone: John Carl Malone (born March 7, 1941) is an American billionaire businessman, landowner, and philanthropist. Sure, he's donated money, but I don't see sources introducing him as primarily a philanthropist.
• Amber Heard: Amber Laura Heard (born April 22, 1986) is an American actress, humanitarian, and social activist. Actress yes, but the other two seem oversold.

What do we think? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead sentences are certainly often blighted with rather tenuous lists of secondary occupations. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I like this idea. Anyone can publish a book through a vanity press, and "philanthropist" usually just means "doesn't pay taxes". Folly Mox (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a little dispute at Stephen Adams (politician) (and, apparently, other articles) about adding "slave owner" to the first sentence of biographies when ownership of slaves is not a defining characteristic of the subject of the article. - Donald Albury 18:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Moyles is ok, but the other two over-peacocky. I favour including significant occupations, but not non-work things. Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Mind you, according to Wikipedia, Malone's big donations tot up to $236 M (constant value), which maybe does make philanthropist defining (as it would be for Bill Gates, say). Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The definingness of an occupation is not determined by whether it was paid employment, but by how sources commonly and consistently describe a subject. Similarly for philanthropy - it shouldn't be about how much the subject donated, but about how sources commonly and consistently describe the subject.

(As an aside, $236m isn't that impressive for an individual with a net worth of ~$9b. It's 3%. The Giving Pledge starts at 50%. 3% is equivalent to the median US family giving ~$3,600. Generous perhaps, but no Carnegie.) Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

What about One, or possibly more, noteworthy and defining positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. Thinker78 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Edited 07:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to have "defining" mentioned twice. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Accidental overlook. I deleted the offending part. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I like this proposal. - Enos733 (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

if 1st sentences were defining no one would read to the end Pastalavist (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Gee, I don't know about this. Consider, for example, Buzz Aldrin: an American former astronaut, engineer and fighter pilot. There is no doubt whatsoever that "astronaut" is what he is best known for. But it is also true that this was only a small part of his life, and had he not become an astronaut, he would still be notable as an engineer for his work on orbital rendezvous and the Aldrin cycler and as a fighter pilot for his exploits in Korea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a good example. If I look at a few random biographies [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], they all mention his career as a fighter pilot in the first paragraph, while none of them position him as an engineer beyond mentioning his degree. Now, this is just based on a few minutes of googling "Buzz Aldrin biography", so it's not exactly a full survey, but I'm willing to believe this counts as sources commonly and consistently describing him as both an astronaut and a fighter pilot, but not as an engineer. So I think his article's first sentence should be amended to ...an American former astronaut and fighter pilot. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I hope this means that we can remove all of the nationalities in the first sentence for articles on people for whom the nationality is not commonly and frequently mentioned when describing them. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia:COP#N specifically calls out nationality in its first bullet point on definingness, on par with vital dates. It will be a long road to remove it from the lead sentence. Folly Mox (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Support the nom, quite sensible. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this, because it will make lead sentences less informative by tending to exclude relevant information. I support including important things, but I think the rule should be "summarize the Wikipedia article", not "see what's mentioned in sources when they briefly mention the subject" (="defining"). A useful rule of thumb is that if a vague or disputable point such as "philanthropist" or "humanitarian" doesn't have a corresponding ==Section== in the article, it's probably not appropriate to mention in the first sentence. For example, Amber Heard has sections on her acting career and charity-and-activism, so she'd probably be described as an actor and activist, but not as a humanitarian. John C. Malone has sections called ==Business career==, ==Land ownership==, and ==Philanthropy==, so that lead sentence is correct.

Also, using the "defining" standard will increase the number of disputes, since some editors have very strict rules about what constitutes "defining", sometimes leaning towards "things I think should be considered the most important" rather than the actual definition, which is a "characteristic...that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having". For example, the defining characteristics of Dodi Fayed, per the actual definition in our guidelines, are:

• being the son of his billionaire father
• being a film producer
• being in a relationship with Diana when they died

How do we know this? By looking at "reliable, secondary sources" and seeing that when he's introduced briefly, it's through phrases such as these: "Dodi Fayed, the son of the billionaire", "the film producer Dodi Fayed", and "Princess Diana's boyfriend at the time of her death".

Some editors object to familial relationships as being "defining", and I can understand it feeling weird, given our usual notion of WP:NOTINHERITED. Other editors will correctly point out that his career as a film producer is not "consistently" mentioned by reliable, secondary sources. What we will end up with is more disputes, rather than better articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

(Aside: do you want to vote in the RfC below?)

To clarify, the rule for the lead would still be "summarize the Wikipedia article". MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE is about what parts of the lead to prioritise in the first sentence.

Regarding disputes, personally I think having good faith source-based debates about what characteristics are defining is likely to result in an improved article. We already have debates about first sentence content (e.g. the original motivating one about philanthropy). The revised guidance is intended to steer those debates to a quicker and better conclusion. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC on defining terms in first sentences of biographies

Should the guidance in MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE be updated to recommend the subject be described using defining terms? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

The proposal is to change the fourth numbered item which currently states:

One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.

to:

One, or possibly more, noteworthy and defining positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.

(change in bold)

Background

See the talk section above.

Survey (defining terms RfC)

• Yes. See my initial proposal in the previous talk page section for my rationale as to why a change would be beneficial (short version: the guidance on definingness is an excellent fit for first sentences, because we should be describing subjects using terms that are commonly and consistently used by sources). Note that the actual wording in this RfC is slightly different to my initial proposal, because I agree with @Thinker78's tweak, on the basis that guidance is best articulated in a positive sense rather than in a negative sense. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per previous section rationale. A lot of puffery could be eliminated, or at least pushed lower in the content. If general notability could be established based on a characteristic alone, it qualifies as defining, otherwise it is not defining. This ties in well with commonly and consistently used by sources, and simplifies deciding on what counts as defining. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Pbsouthwood, could you explain what you mean about "general notability" being "established based on a characteristic alone"? Are you arguing for an Wikipedia:Inherent notability concept?

  The first sentence of Donald Trump says he "is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." Would you shorten that to "was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021", since being an American, being a politician, being a media personality, and being a businessman are not the sorts of characteristics that make editors assume the subject is notable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  WhatamIdoing, re: Are you arguing for an Wikipedia:Inherent notability concept? No. Just that any characteristic that would make the general notability bar on its own can be considered due for the lead sentence, other characteristics which on their own would not satisfy general notability, or are far less notable, should normally not be in the lead sentence. However, it the topic does meet an inherent notability criterion, I would usually expect it to be mentioned in the lead sentence. (Thinking of a species, a city, or a professional footballer here - it would usually be a bit weird if that was not mentioned.)

  In the Trump example, POTUS#45, politician, media personality and businessman are all characteristics Trump is independently notable for, and are eligible for first sentence mention. Each alone would have justified the article's existence on general notability. There are a bunch of other characteristics that would also establish general notability in his case, but we have to draw the line somewhere or it would be unreadable. Politician could be omitted, as it is redundant to POTUS, but he is still a highly notable politician, so also a good argument to be kept. "American" is covered by another convention, and in this case is highly relevant, although implied by POTUS to those who are familiar with the US political system, which is not everybody. Does this clarify my position adequately? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure. When you say "any characteristic that would make the general notability bar on its own", do you mean something like "we have enough independent, in-depth sources to write an article about Trump solely from the POV of him being a businessman, so 'Trump is a businessman' would meet the GNG even if he hadn't ever been on a television show or run for elected office"?

  (Characteristics don't establish GNG. Only sources can do that.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  WhatamIdoing, When you say "any characteristic that would make the general notability bar on its own", do you mean something like "we have enough independent, in-depth sources to write an article about Trump solely from the POV of him being a businessman, so 'Trump is a businessman' would meet the GNG even if he hadn't ever been on a television show or run for elected office"? - Yes, that is what I mean, Trump was already notable as a businessman before he went into politics, and might never have been a television personality without that established notability.
  Also yes, sources establish general notability, and thereby also establish the notable characteristics suitable for mention in the lead sentence. Without those (GNG) sources, other published characteristics may not be notable, though by consensus, special notability conditions may apply. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  On further consideration, I am not happy with the term "Defining characteristics", as it has not been adequately defined (if it has, please provide link), and is likely to be the source of much time-wasting contention. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:CATDEF. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  That seems appropriate. Thanks, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support: a reasonable adjustment which may provide benefits in clearer texts. (Aside from the often unnecessary but ever-popular "philanthropist", this may also help address "social worker" and "pedagogue" add-ons, terms whose meanings can be quite different across English-speaking communities.) AllyD (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Wording in the first sentence is sometimes arbitrary and reflecting more of the opinion of the editor than what reliable sources state. Thinker78 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Thinker78, how do you imagine this change resulting in less "of the opinion of the editor than what reliable sources state", given that we'd be asking editors to do exactly what they did before, plus to form an opinion on whether X or Y characteristic is "defining"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  We would be looking for what reliable sources say about the subject, nor writing something of our own opinion. I know it probably has its drawbacks but after all it's a guideline that could have workarounds here and there. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Thinker78, you will not find a reliable source that says "The defining characteristics for Donald Trump are...", so that you can simply just look for what the reliable sources say. Instead, you will find sources that say a lot of things –

  "Donald Trump the political showman", "Donald Trump, the former president", Donald Trump, White House hopeful", "former President Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States", "Donald Trump, the current GOP frontrunner", "Donald Trump, the first former president in history to face criminal charges", "Donald Trump the only living president not descended from slaveholders", " Donald Trump, the brash businessman", "Donald Trump the federal defendant", "Donald Trump, the former reality TV personality and real estate mogul", "real-estate developer Donald Trump", "Donald Trump the actor", "Donald Trump the businessman", "Former U.S. president Donald Trump", "ex-President Donald Trump", "real estate magnate, best-selling author and reality TV star, Donald Trump", "Donald Trump, real estate magnate, "Donald Trump, real estate mogul, entrepreneur and billionaire", "businessman Donald Trump", "TV personality Donald Trump", "Billionaire tycoon Mr Trump", "former reality TV star", "billionaire businessman Donald Trump", "businessman, television personality, and politician", "shrewd businessman and self-made billionaire", "self-financed billionaire candidate", "billionaire real estate tycoon", "scion of a wealthy real estate developer" (and many, many, many more)

  – and then editors will have to use their own opinions and their own judgement to decide which of them to include or exclude. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Getting the weight in the first sentence right is extremely important because it's often the part of the article that gets the most exposure and because it can set the tone for the rest of the article. We plainly need better guidance for what goes in there on biographies, and defining-ness is a reasonable way to go forwards. All the reasons that we use it for categories also apply to the lead sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. 'Defining' is a more apt choice of wording than 'noteworthy' imo. SWinxy (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• I'm not sure anymore. I'm swayed by WhatamIdoing's oppose in the RFCBEFORE above. We may very well end up dealing with cases where the consistently used by sources will limit us in misrepresentative ways, like when there's a level 2 subheading in the article discussing an important aspect the sources don't commonly address (due to datedness, breadth of coverage, etc). I would hope these cases would be rare. I could also foresee circular arguments of the form "it belongs in the lead because it's defining because it belongs in the lead", and some of the guidance cited at DEFINING may have to be revised to account for this. I think it's an improvement over noteworthy, which describes the actual proposed text, but I am in agreement with the aforementioned oppose backing the idea that the lead should ideally summarise the article, and not interface directly with sources. (Apologies for inclarity; my words today are not good.) Folly Mox (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Fair point about the potential circularity of definitions, but I think this can be overcome because leads are only mentioned as indicative of definingness, not part of the definition of definingness.

  Bear in mind that this guidance only covers the first sentence. The rest of the lead is free to mention level 2 subheading topics. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons outlined above, but mostly because I think it will be WP:CREEPY and won't achieve the apparent goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing Ah! The minority report? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps the wisdom gained of experience is more relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose: how do we define what is "defining"? RS will disagree. Per Whatamidoing. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

LEADCITE rewrite

I rewrote LEADCITE and LEADCITE COMMENT: User:Cessaune/MOS:LEADCITE

It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing change; I'm willing to workshop something, but LEADCITE as it currently stands is messy, ambiguous, and contradictory. Cessaune [talk] 16:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I frequently copy/paste/rehash lead sections to serve as summary sections in higher level articles, and having the lead adequately cited is a huge help, as it can be quite difficult to work out exactly what citation in the body text refers to a specific statement in the lead, particularly when there are multiple references at the end of a long paragraph and they are not accessible on-line. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Too often people say stuff like "we don't cite in lead sections" or "you're not supposed to cite in the lead, it's redundant" in GA/FA reviews and such even though that has never been at any point true as far as I know. Having citations in the lead is a big help, but people don't like it, which is why LEADCITE is so ambiguous. I think I clarified up the real essence of LEADCITE: citations in the lead are required for quotations/controversial or challenged statements; user discretion for anything else. Plain and simple. Despite the fact that citations in the lead are useful. Cessaune [talk] 17:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

One of the problems with citing the lead is that we're often trying to summarize very big subjects in one sentence. While some of that could be easily sourced, "please cite everything" can end up with editors arguing that although there is a huge, well-sourced section called ==Controversy==, it's not okay to write a sentence like "It was controversial" unless you can find a source that uses the exact word controversial.

Also, leads (and first paragraphs of technical sections) tend to provide context, and that can lead to somewhat irrelevant citations ("Foo is unrelated to the similarly named Phoo" – probably citeable, but why bother?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

"Please cite everything" and "cite nothing because you aren't supposed to" are equally bad in my opinion, especially when you consider lead/body visibility (people read the lead first, and often don't get to the bottom parts) and such.

Anyway, what do you think of my version of LEADCITE? I don't actually change anything/make any new points. Cessaune [talk] 21:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Some common sense is desirable, but unfortunately not always on display. We have some editors who get fixated on the literal meaning of a few points and either are unaware of the others or find it convenient to ignore them. We are also stuck between the hammer of no original research and the hard place of copyright infringement, with bypasses through the swamp of inaccuracy and the jungle of bad writing style. I agree that citing everything and citing nothing are both not ideal.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"If it ain't close paraphrasing, then it's obviously original research."

Cessaune, I think that the best way to re-write the template is to delete it, and if that isn't feasible, then I think it probably wants to be re-written in very direct language, such as:

"I see that you added a {{citation needed}} tag to the beginning of an article. Wikipedia has always allowed inline citations at the beginning of articles. However, I've removed the tag this time, because that specific fact is cited elsewhere in the article, and we normally only provide a citation once for each fact in an article. If you have trouble finding the relevant source, please ask me directly, and I'll show you which one it is."

I don't have strong opinions about the re-write of the MOS section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: What do you think of my changes? Cessaune [talk] 17:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I plan to get back to you on this later. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

My impressions are that it is more clearly expressed than the original, and I have not noticed any significant omissions. Also a little shorter, which I consider an advantage. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the template rewrite, check its talk page. I tried changing it and there was a discussion some time ago. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Mobile lead image placement

I've noticed on mobile articles that the image (or infobox) places before the first paragraph in the code always appears after it instead (though not on user pages). What exactly causes this? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, I was wondering if it was something that could be added on other wikis and I couldn't find anything about it. Ringtail Raider (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a technical issue. I don't remember the specifics. But the infobox should show first, per MOS:LAYOUT. You can ask in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) if your question doesn't get traction here. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Input requested

There is a discussion about the first sentence of the article Talk:Oxford English Dictionary. If you can provide input that would be great. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Coordinates duplicated in the lead (both inside and outside infobox)

Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Coordinates_duplicated_in_the_lead_(both_inside_and_outside_infobox). fgnievinski (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Not contradictory

This article opens "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents... .. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." Then tha tlinks to "A lead paragraph (sometimes shortened to lead; in the United States sometimes spelled lede) is the opening paragraph of an article, book chapter, or other written work that summarizes its main ideas." Erm, that's exactly what it is, then. There is no contradiction in definition, so why claim there is? 2A00:23C8:8F9F:4801:250A:E861:3F91:DA83 (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? This is not an article. And the word "contradictory" or "contradiction" doesn't appear in this guideline, nor on its talk page, except one occurrence under the #LEADCITE rewrite thread which seems to have nothing to do with what you posted. As for "It is not a news-style lead or 'lede' paragraph", see previous dicussions in archives. In summary: A journalistic lede is very little like an encyclopedic lead. The former is generally written to "tease" the reader with hints at information to induce them to read more, while the latter is a summary of all the salient details. The former is usually confined to 1-2 compressed-language ("news-speak") sentences, and under 25 words, while the latter is written in normal encyclopedic prose as clearly as possible, is usually much longer (except at a very small stub article), and varies in length by the length of the article it is summarizing. The former vary in style ("hard" versus "soft" leads), while the latter do not (they're all "hard"). PS: See also WP:NOT#NEWS policy: "Wikipedia is not written in news style." We have this policy, and MOS:LEAD avoids using the term "lede", because we have long had a pervasive problem with new editors trying to write in news-journalism instead of encyclopedic style, because they often are most familiar with news writing and have a sense of its style as "the" correct way to write.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the IP's point is that the wikilink is to Lead paragraph, which defines a lead paragraph just as this MOS section does. If it linked instead to News style#Lead, then it would make sense to contrast it to a Wikipedia lead. Schazjmd (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's was an easy enough adjustment to make. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"Mos:BOLDAVOID" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mos:BOLDAVOID has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § Mos:BOLDAVOID until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Forbid computer-animated term in lead sentence

Per Geraldo Perez, "How animated isn't defining and doesn't belong In the intro sentence, that it is animated does. Don't need to link as what animated means is well understood". Also WP:OVERLINKING and WP:SEAOFBLUE, clutter like this is unacceptable. As some other users are removing the term including myself on film article heads; I think its now time to blacklist it. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)