Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

Transclusions

I moved the “Link to subarticle” section into the “Elements”, since it precedes the Lead paragraph. I also made “Lead sentence format” a subsection of “Lead sentence”.

Obviously, the transclusion scheme interferes with such edits which are not restricted to a single transcluded section. Sorry. A bit of clean-up is still required. I suggest that these guidelines specific to the lead section be linked from elsewhere, instead of appearing in two places. If you must transclude two adjacent sections, then put them in a single page, so at least they can be edited together. —Michael Z. 2009-01-14 22:08 z

Peacock terms in the lead

I've noticed that peacock terms are often found in lead sections, and the style guideline Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms discusses this with examples. Because this problem is endemic to lead sections, it would be helpful to see it mentioned here. Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with a brief mention of this, as long as we also recognize sometimes superlatives are not only acceptable, but desirable. I've seen some editors mistake overwhelming historical consensus for peacock terms, and I don't want to add to the confusion in the matter. For example, this sentence is taken from the lead of Abraham Lincoln: [Lincoln] successfully led the country through its greatest internal crisis, the American Civil War, and even though virtually every historian on the planet agrees that the US Civil War was the country's "greatest internal crisis" (often using those three words verbatim), editors have said that this is subjective, and needs to be excised. There's a place for common sense here, as this section of WP:APT makes clear. Unschool 19:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've run into the same problem several times as well. Let me try to come up with something and present it to you here for review. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem

I'd like to do something about this sentence:

"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."

I understand the need for this, but it's apparently being used at FA and FAR either to remove material from the lead that's undeveloped in the text, or to insist that everything in the lead be developed. The problem with this one-size-fits-all approach is that sometimes material is good for the lead and doesn't need development, or isn't suited to it e.g. a quotation that sums the personality up in the case of a bio. I'd therefore like to add something like:

"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, though sometimes material will be suitable for the lead without needing further development—for example, quotations that give an overview of the subject, or that highlight a particular aspect of it."

I'd also like to add: "Above all remember that this guideline is not a recipe or a substitute for editorial judgment."

Any objections? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

SV, I totally agree with your assessment of the problem, and I agree with you that this needs to be reworded. But, while I have nothing better to offer right now, I'm not immediately satisfied with your proposed wording. It just seems inelegant, and hence, easily misunderstood. Anyone else feel like I do, or should we just go with SV's verbiage? Unschool 04:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to my wording at all, Unschool; it was just a very quick suggestion. I'll take a look tomorrow and try to come up with something more articulate. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we should add "Above all remember that this guideline is not a recipe or a substitute for editorial judgment", becuase that is true of all guidelines, and I don't see that there is a particular problem here precisely for that reason. I don't agree that any changes are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, but unfortunately it needs to be spelled out that guidelines aren't mandatory. I was recently told that I couldn't have in the lead of an FA that the subject, an academic, "was as close to being a feminist as a powerful man of that generation could be" (quoting another academic), unless I developed the issue of his feminism in the body of the article. LEAD was cited as the reason, and I was told that quite a few people come a cropper because of it at FAC and FAR. We do need a change if that kind of thing is happening. This page was never intended to be an algorithm. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the wording of any change, I propose (with the new part in bold):

"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable published sources, though not everything mentioned in the lead must be developed in the body of the article: quotations, for example, or interesting observations about the subject may be appropriate for the lead alone, depending on editorial judgment.

I'd also like to remove the following, which is repetitive of "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic": "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's even necessary to add that text. Relevant quotations seem to me under the "use your brain" exception to all editorial guidelines, so I'd be wary of adding that bit of text. I'd actually be more inclined to remove the "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" part of the guideline, since the "teasing" text is the explanation of why it's not a good idea to drop a random fact and never mention it again. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on that ... my experience with medical articles is that editors are always trying to add info to the lead which is disproportionate relative to reliable sources ... this text is important in almost every medical article I'm involved with. I don't want to delete it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the text needs to be changed (although I can be persuaded). Many guidelines and rules on wikipedia will have rare or occasional instances where it needs to be cautiously ignored or bent slightly. I think that this is one such instance, which should be resolved via common sense, concensus and good editorial judgement, see WP:COMMON. Also see this as well. WP:IGNORE--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but apparently it's not being applied with common sense, so we need to tweak it to make it sound less definitive. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence is sensible and should not be removed. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I do not see the "don't tease" sentence as redundant. It is possible to look at "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" and decide that a particular subtopic is worthy of only a sentence or two in the lead, which may in fact cause "teasing". (I once did this in a lead I was developing, until the "don't tease" guideline set me straight.) A. Parrot (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for adding the sentence. More importantly, I can't think of a case where something in the lead wasn't expanded more fully in the text. I'd need some examples before even considering it. Most etymological material gets expanded later in the article when I write. My biggest worry is about some form of soapboxing. Leads on big articles can be squabbled over extensively. So please maybe list some specific examples below in subsections and we can analyse them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Casliber. No specific examples have yet been given (article names, with specific text in the lead that does not summarize anything in the body). Without these examples, it's hard to see why the proposed changes are needed. Eubulides (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm one of the guilty parties here, having commented at FAC about an article that mentioned something in the lead without fleshing out the story in the article. I think the result was an improvement - I certainly learned something about naval operations in the Baltic during WWI. ϢereSpielChequers 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying the issues

Unless I am misunderstanding things, SV has brought up two different issues, although, in a strange way, they may be related. It appears to me that the first point is being lost (by SV's own mixing of the topics within the same strand). I agree with her on her first suggestion and disagree on the second.

• First, she has stated that she disagrees with the current requirement within WP:LEAD that every item mentioned in the lead must be further developed later in the article.
• Second, she has stated that the admonition not to "tease" the reader (with hints of what is to come) is unnecessary and should be removed from WP:LEAD.

In a way, these two policies are opposites of one another. The first might be worded, Everything in the lead must be developed into major points in the body of the article, and the second might be read, Every major point in the body must be included in the lead.

Regarding the second point, I find myself guided by the rules of good expository writing. We're not writing a mystery novel here, we're writing factual information with the intent of maximizing the help we give to our readers. If the lead of George Washington noted that he was "an important American leader", but didn't mention until the body of the article that he was the President of the US and the leader of the American military effort that gained the US's independence, that would be "teasing". That we steer away from this kind of writing is the reason why WP:LEAD recommends that notability be established as early as the first sentence, if it's possible. Consideration of our readers demands that we not force them to read the entire article just to get the gist of what the article's main ideas are. Hence, no "teasing".

Regarding her first point, I agree with SV. I have no FA experience and so am incompetent to comment on its impact there, but I know that several times I have witnessed discussions between editors disagreeing over this issue. The disputes I have come across have been of the type where some broad statement is made about the subject—sometimes even supported by a source—that is either summative of the subject or else constitutes a broad generalization, often about noteworthiness. Frankly, it just seems to me that good writing often includes making some broad swaths in the introduction. It's called "creating interest in reading the rest of the article"; it's not mandatory, but it will enhance the experience of the reader. The only downside to adopting SV's suggestion, it seems to me, is that it might be seen as an invitation to conduct OR, but the guideline can be written in such a way as to nullify that risk. Unschool 21:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the writing I'm concerned about. Often you find a nice quote, or an interesting factoid, that's just perfect for the lead, in terms of the writing and the attempt to create a stand-alone thing that's interesting — only to have someone tell you you can't include it unless and until you develop it in the body. It's this writing-by-algorithm that I strongly disagree with, and if the guideline is being misused in that way, I'd really like to see some words added or changed to put a stop to it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that you need to solve the real problem (FAC participants insisting on mindless adherence to general advice) instead of a simple manifestation of the problem (the contents of this particular advice page). Perhaps an expansion of WP:FAC's #Supporting and Opposing section would address the issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought that:

1. every main point of the topic should be reflected in a separate main section of the article ( a level two header), and by extension, every main section of the article should be very briefly summarized in the lead. Mentioning subsections of a major section in the lead (level three or below headers) is a decision left to common sense (even including considerations of style), but main sections are mandatory.
2. if things are in the lead but not the article, they can only be very specific details (teasers, I guess) which support a main topic, as reflected in a major section.
3. "only" above means no throwaway references to criticisms, critiques etc. which are not developed in the body text etc. Those by definition do not support; they offer a counterpoint.

...that's all Ling.Nut (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your first idea is not a bad rule of thumb, but it is not always a good choice (and thus should not be turned into a rule). For example, WP:MEDMOS#Sections suggests more than a dozen major sections for disease-related articles. They may not all be sufficiently important to include in the lead, and they can't always be crammed into the same paragraph just because we simultaneously want to have at least a sentence about every level 2 topic in the lead and to restrict the lead to four paragraphs. (For that matter, some of the sections might themselves be a single sentence: The contents of an ==Epidemiology== section may be "nobody knows," dressed up to sound encyclopedic.) We need more editor judgment here, and less of a checklist approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to put this above the question to SV... the example above spells out a problem with WP:MEDMOS#Sections, rather than with my post. Sections without real content shouldn't be sections :-) On one hand I agree that guidelines shouldn't be mandatory; on the otherWP:COMMON suggests that all main section must be mentioned in the lead. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise with SlimVirgin's "it needs to be spelled out that guidelines aren't mandatory", because WP:WIAFA reads as if it generally makes guidelines mandatory, with no room for WP:COMMON, and is interpreted that way - to the extent that WP:MOS minutiae dominate many FA reviews. On the other hand I share [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]'s concern that "editors are always trying to add info to the lead which is disproportionate relative to reliable sources" and Casliber's about "soapboxing" - or, to put it more bluntly, POV-pushing and WP:UNDUE. SlimVirgin, could you please provide examples of where you think it was appropriate to mention something in the lead but not cover it in the main text, so we can see whether such cases can be handled neatly but without inviting POV-pushing and WP:UNDUE. --Philcha (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this off and on today - about the only thing I can come up with is an IPA pronunciation, and even then many might have more discussion in the body. I would like to see some factoids SV is thinking about. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say I'm not ignoring these responses; I've just been a bit tied up elsewhere. I'll reply here soonish. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled at this entire request. Is someone guilty of reading just the lead of this guideline? The "Relative emphasis" section has for some time contained exceptions to the "cover elsewhere too" rule, and has explicitly mentioned quotations as an example since SlimVirgin added them in Feb 2008. I'm most surprised at the "this guideline is not a recipe or a substitute for editorial judgment" request -- what does it say in a big box at top of the guideline? Colin°^Talk 12:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Bolding of family name in articles about groups of living things above the species level

I am requesting comments on the interpretation of this guideline on bolding the family name in the lede of an article about a group of animals, at Talk:Elephant#Bolding of Elephantidae in lede. -- Donald Albury 09:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Elements in the lead: where should the protection template go?

IMO, the protection templates (Template:pp-dispute, etc.) should go at the very top, since they apply to everything beneath (including hatnotes). We'd like this determined one way or the other, so we can update AWB's top business engine accordingly. –xeno^talk 17:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we using the small icons in the upper right corner now instead of templates? Doesn't that obviate the issue? Unschool 23:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not always (setting small=yes paramater, I assume you're talking about) ... –xeno^talk 18:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, now that you mention it, I have occasionally seen the full-sized template. But isn't this deprecated? I've changed the big templates to little icons; have I done something improper? Unschool 04:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Usually stuff like {{pp-dispute}} is left in the embiggened form. Either way, the location still needs to be determined in the code. –xeno^talk 12:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

THis question belongs at, and is treated at, WP:ACCESS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection templates are mentioned neither at WP:ACCESS nor at WT:ACCESS and its archives. Where specifically are you referring? The original question has to do with the location vertically in the wikitext, rather than where a specific template invoked by the wikitext chooses to put its icon.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Length

I propose the following:

< 15,000 characters	around 32 kilobytes	> 30,000 characters
one or two paragraphs	two or three paragraphs	three or four paragraphs
500–2000 characters	1500–2500 characters	2000–3500 characters

There has been some instances in which longish articles (30-60KB readable prose) have come under scrutiny for having longish WP:LEADs. Like we have guidelines on article length. I think there should be some policy on what constitutes an acceptable length for an article's lead. No one really questions why Hillary Rodham Clinton has a long lead, but I have been asked why Tyrone Wheatley and Cato June have long leads. Personally, since their article's are lengthy, I feel it is O.K. for their leads to be so as well in order to adequately summarize the content. However, we should have a policy like a lead generally should not be much more than 3000 or 3500 characters or something that gives editors guidance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This subject has at times been confusing. Recently, Ted Kennedy has had a lot of attention paid to him and his LEAD bloated (to around 4500 characters) and then got overchopped (to under 750 characters). I believe the similar bloating happened with Michael Jackson. People don't know how long a LEAD should be and have no guideline to turn to.

The problem I see with both Tyrone Wheatley and Cato June, and in contrast to Hillary Rodham Clinton, is that the first paragraph doesn't give enough of an overview. For leads of this length, the first paragraph should give you a bite-sized overview, and the rest of the lead a longer overview. The first paragraph of a lead of this length needs to be standalone-capable. Rd232 ^talk 11:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I argue that Wheatley's is standalone capable, but that does not address the main issue of this proposal, which is to consider a new guideline. I think I have now reworked June a bit to be more clear in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 11:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wheatley's opening para doesn't mention that he went into coaching, for example. As for your proposal - well I guess it harmlessly extends the Length section in the guideline; but I don't think in characters and I'm not sure how many people do or how useful that is. Word count seems more obvious and intuitive. Rd232 ^talk 12:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It starts "Tyrone Anthony Wheatley (born January 19, 1972) is an assistant football coach". His coaching career is non-notable to date is given adequate due in the current edition of the LEAD, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's significant for the person; I would put a sentence at the end of the first para mentioning it. Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, if the first paragraph should stand alone, Wikipedia:Lead_section#Opening_paragraph should say so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should. Rd232 ^talk 12:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, the current guidance on lead length is fine, and we should not encourage overly long leads. I see no need for change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The policy is meant to discourage long leads like Kennedy had for a while. The current guideline does not really provide guidance in a substantive way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, current rule is fine. All cited articles are high traffic, highly watched so their leads pulse with the newsreel and then settle down, case by case. When an event like Jackson's death brings in hundreds of editors, guidelines don't work (and won't work) instantly and automatically. NVO (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest the following clarifying addition to Length section:

The lead serves as an introduction to and overview of the article; the reader should not need to read the entire article to get the key points. In general, the longer the article, the more key points there will be, and therefore the longer the lead should be - however leads should not be longer than 3 or 4 paragraphs. There is a balance between the twin pitfalls of leaving readers to find key points in a long article, and leaving readers to find key points in a long lead: for longer leads, the length of the lead itself can become a problem for the reader seeking a very rapid introduction. As a result for longer leads, it may be helpful to make the opening paragraph a bite-sized summary of the article, with the rest of the lead giving a more detailed introduction. For example, in a biography this approach would mean ensuring that the person's entire life and work is summarised in the first paragraph.

Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a valid change, but I still think something like:

The lead serves as an introduction to and overview of the article; the reader should not need to read the entire article to get the key points. In general, the longer the article, the more key points there will be, and therefore the longer the lead should be - however leads should not be longer than 3 or 4 paragraphs and should not exceed 3500 characters. There is a balance between the twin pitfalls of leaving readers to find key points in a long article, and leaving readers to find key points in a long lead: for longer leads, the length of the lead itself can become a problem for the reader seeking a very rapid introduction. As a result for longer four paragraph leads, it may be helpful to make the opening paragraph a bite-sized summary of the article, with the rest of the lead giving a more detailed introduction. For example, in a biography this approach would mean ensuring that the person's entire life and work is summarised in the first paragraph.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Characters? Really? It makes me think of cartoon characters... Why not a word count? Rd232 ^talk 00:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Characters, and KB are more common on WP than word count. Maybe we could get prose size to measure the lead separately and then use a KB size. However, at WP:DYK nobody seems to have trouble figuring out how many characters a passage is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

When I'm reviewing GAs, I tell people to do 1-2 senteces per paragraph. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would you do that. Can you point me to a couple of WP:LEADs structured like that.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a policy thing, or whatever. You can look at the GAs on my userpage, I guess. That's how I do it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The first few articles I looked at had many more than 1-2 sentences per paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. Looking at my more recent ones, I seem to do about 2 sentences per paragraph for the small articles, and just under 1 for the larger ones. Anyways, it seems like bigger articles get bigger leads, but the leads grow slower than the articles. Maybe I just meant to do 1-2 per paragraph. Based on a spot check, how many do you do? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How can you have less than one sentence per paragraph???!!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Characters and KB may be more common, but it's not necessarily the most helpful thing for newbies. (Also I don't deal with DYK and neither do most editors.) I'm suggesting we could try and figure out a word count, and add that to the table, and leave the characters ref out of the above proposed paragraph, since it'll be right next to the table. Rd232 ^talk 10:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Related guidelines, such as WP:SIZERULE, don't use word count anymore. I don't think we should either because that can become a stylistic restriction and does not really limit the length of a page. Some people could make 600-700 words over 5000 characters and others would be limited to less than 3000 characters due to vocabulary and stylistic tendencies. All related rules that I know about length of articles either use characters or KB. Unless you can demonstrate current guidelines that use words, I think we should stay away from word count.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Some people?" WP is a collaborative enterprise, and maybe some topics require longer words... And word count is far more common a measure outside Wikipedia... But never mind. Can we just drop the character ref in the proposed para though, it's there in the table. Rd232 ^talk 14:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

THis looks like an attempt to turn a guideline into a hard-and-fast rule via instruction creep; we do not need hard and fast character counts in a guildeline. I oppose this whole thing; it's a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, I think this makes the 40th suggestion I have made that you have commented on and the 40th one you have opposed. I am beginning to think you don't like me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, what about my proposal, sans character reference? Rd232 ^talk 15:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that there are leads with undesirable lengths, and I respect Tony's attempt to provide more guidance. Nothing he is saying is off the mark. Still, I believe that our current guideline, if combined with a good dose of insightful editing and a pinch of boldness, is enough to take care of any major problems we encounter. Let's keep it as it is, until such time as we find the problem is getting out of hand. Unschool 23:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well since no-one seemed to object to my proposed paragraph, I've added it. (WP:BRD). Rd232 ^talk 00:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Confused: as I read this page, almost all input has been that no changes are warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Tony was the only one to comment explicitly on it, and that was positively. Nobody else seemed to care (comments seemed to be at Tony's suggestion), so I thought I'd stick it in per WP:BRD. PS You still haven't said what your opinion of it is! Rd232 ^talk 01:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I commented on it, Rd. What happened, did my lack of harshness get interpreted as acquiescence? Unschool 01:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't support this addition, Rd, because people are using this guideline like a sledgehammer, so I oppose any more instruction creep. In the wrong hands, your addition would lead to arguments and revert wars over nothing, because you're basically proposing a lead within a lead, so all the fighting that currently goes on around leads would intensify around the first paragraph. If it's the inverted pyramid you're suggesting, I largely agree, but I also want editors to be allowed some editorial freedom. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It's a guideline. All of these proposed changes, word and character counts, etc. are just opening it up to wikilawyering. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How about a "rule of 15": The lead should be approximately 1/15th the size of the entire article. For the boundaries, we could maybe say, no less than 300 or more than 4000 characters. It could be noted that this is just a rule of thumb and is flexible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My thinking is that the current policy advocates a three to four paragraph lead for any article greater than 30,000 characters (30 KB, I believe). I think our upward bound on characters, be it 3500 or 4000, should thus be reached at 30,000 characters or 30 KB, as it were. I have not seen a lead longer than 3500 characters that I do not think is too long so I don't know why we would advocate a policy over 3500. I have seen plenty between 3000 and 3500 that seem reasonable. If you can point me to WP:LEADs over 3500 that you consider acceptable, I would consider advocating 4000, but I think I am inclined to support with 3500.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

King, that's a thoughtful compromise, but I'm not able to support it. I think it could easily lead to two problems.

1. Lede police who will trim valuable info from a lead because it nominally exceeds the recommended length, and the opposite,
2. Editors who will add fluff to ledes to get them "up to recommended levels", without it necessarily being good writing.

I really think our current guideline is enough for good editors to handle the problem insofar as it currently exists. Sure, there will be some disagreements on occasion, but I would prefer having those settled by intelligent discussion than by some pre-determined semi-arbitrary limits that may or may not be in the best interests of any particular article in the future. Unschool 01:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any leads longer than 3500 characters that are not considered too long?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)