Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Lead section page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23: 30 days

Shortcut

WT:LEAD

Manual of Style

	This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
	This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
	For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Heads up on RfC concerning a section of THIS page, but placed elsewhere

There is an RfC at the BIO talk page which actually is about changing a section of THIS page (specifically WP:QUOTENAME, the "Usage in first sentence" subsection of the "Alternative names" section of this page). I put the RfC at the Bio page; it is here:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC: Clarification and/or change in how common hypocorisms (diminutives) are handled on first use of name

RfC regarding bolding of sponsored names

As a threshold issue, all editors agreed that where the sponsor's name is actually in the article title, it should be in bold (e.g., AT&T Park). Discussion focused on cases where the sponsor's name is not in the title. The consensus was that no consistent policy should be adopted across English Wikipedia in such cases. In other words, bolding such names is neither universally mandatory nor universally prohibited. Rather, the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, consistent with MOS:BOLDSYN (which advises editors to put "significant alternative titles" in boldface type). What is "significant" depends on context/use. Where disputes arise, they should be decided on the relevant article talk page (or WikiProject talk page. Neutrality^talk 01:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

From above:

There seems to be inconsistency in the way that sponsored names are handled in the lead section of articles. On some articles (including Dean Court and Queen's Club Championships) the sponsored name is written in bold. On some other articles (including London Eye and The Boat Race) the sponsored name is not in bold.

Should a consistent policy be adopted across English Wikipedia, either:

making the sponsored name bold on all articles, or
requiring that the sponsored name is not written in bold?

(NA) Relisted Yashovardhan (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC); originally initiated by pasta3049 (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the sponsored name should be in bold as it is a significant alternative title for the subject of the article pasta3049 (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 since sponsors are transient, sometimes changing on an annual basis. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. If it's a permanent part of the name of the subject, to the point where we include it in our article title, we should boldface it (example: my employer, the Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences, which has held that name since its formation some 15 years ago). If it's interim, temporary, or contingent, as in the examples given in the RFC wording, we should not boldface it. So we should avoid making a rule that locks us into one way or the other for all articles. Or, to put it another way: see WP:NOTTEMPORARY and WP:RECENTISM. Our articles should be as timeless as we can make them rather than only being valid if we read them in the same year as that version was created. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Depends What David Eppstein said. E Eng 05:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 per Redrose64. We create BLPs using (and bolding) the name they're known by, while their birth name is not bolded (example: Matlock Rose). Since you can't create the article using the sponsored name for the reasons Redrose64 stated, they should not be bolded in the lead.
Oppose: itDepends per David Epstein. So I support neither of the options and must oppose the proposal as a whole, as the depends option is not offered. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1' - as option 2 prohibits s bolding the sponsored name and the WP:COMMONNAME is often the sponsored name, and in any case it is the official and legal name while sponsored. Bolding multiple names is done and seems acceptable, and always bold the sponsored name as the official one. Markbassett (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No (aka Oppose and Depends). This falls neatly under MOS:BOLDSYN, which tells us to bold significant alternative titles, with such significance usually meaning it merits a redirect, and nothing else. Per David Eppstein, sometimes a sponsored title is significant and sometimes it is not. Maybe a consistent policy on what makes a sponsored name a significant alternative title would be called for, but a consistent policy that it is always bolded or not bolded is not.Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Depends, as MOS:BOLDSYN is and always was enough to determine this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it depends on how significant the use of the sponsorship title is. For example, AT&T Park should be bolded, but not Coca-Cola London Eye. Kaldari (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Looking at these responses, it appears that there is general consensus that the sponsored names (including the 4 articles that I linked to) should not be written in bold (contrary to my personal preference). The exceptions given in responses (Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences and AT&T Park) need to have the sponsored name in bold anyway because it is the article title. pasta3049 (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

Relisting comment : This is a matter which affects various different parts of Wikipedia and hence, it is necessary to have a more through consensus. Relevant wikiprojects should be informed of this Rfc. Presently, there's been little discussion and not many editors have participated. A fresh relist will ensure more participation. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. On Kentucky Derby, we have (paraphrased) "the Kentucky Derby, aka the Kentucky Derby sponsored by Yum Brands." That's a neat way of putting it because it was the Derby a long time before Yum Brands got created or began sponsorship. If the event has been sponsored by a company since it was created then I'd definitely bold. If the sponsor varies from year to year I wouldn't. I think this is one of those things that varies from article to article and should do so. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 so long as the sponsored name is current. The sponsored name can change over time, and one that's been ditched is less significant than the current one. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Depends per MOS:BOLDSYN. If the alternative title using the sponsors name is well known or the primary name uses the sponsor's title than it should be bolded otherwise it should not. I support Giraffedata's suggestion that guidelines on when might be helpful. PaleAqua (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Basic facts"?

Re this bold addition and my revert: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article – Lawrencekhoo asked for clarification on my talk page, so I'm bringing it here to a larger audience. I'm not sure I can readily come up with common examples, but they may include:

The very definition of the term,
Alternative names and pronunciations,
Place and date of a persons birth and death,
Some kind of location or classification (country, administrative unit, taxon, branch)
...?

Can we (or do we need at all, per WP:CREEP) come up with some illustrative examples? No such user (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that "basic facts" is open to such wide interpretation. I believe I added "e.g. pronunciation and alternative names", but I am open to anything. I just would like some clarification of what it means. Perhaps we should come to consensus on what the term means before we decide on examples? LK (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like WP:CREEP to me. Personally, I like the ambiguity of "basic facts" :) Kaldari (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a good idea to leave something in the lead of a policy page ambiguous? LK (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, sometimes there is – per WP:CREEP not every rule has to be set in stone, and some things are best left for editors' common sense and editorial consensus. As Kaldari said, ambiguity here might be desirable, as it leaves the definition of "basic facts" to be decided on case-by-case basis (as the scope of our topics is so wide that it is very difficult to prescribe). No such user (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First for clarification, this is a guideline, not a policy. As with any suggestions in the MOS, editors should apply common sense and discuss potential conflicts on the article's respective talk page. While guidelines here should be concise, they should remain somewhat generalized and not overly precise in their recommendations. Here, I would agree the phrase "basic facts" is a good fit for now. It could possibly be enhanced further, but listing examples to me would seem like overdoing it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute about lead length

Hello everyone; could I request some third-party eyes on an ongoing dispute at Talk:Inside No. 9#Lead section? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about requiring the full legal name of companies in the bolded part of the lede

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Official title in lede czar 23:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section First sentence has a bad example

Section #First sentence has a bad example concerning a comprehensive dictionary.

In talking about minimizing redundancy in the first sentence, Note 6 currently says (emphasis added):

Both contain some redundancy, but the second is better because it tells us that the OED is the world's most respected dictionary of English. Again, someone who knows what the word dictionary means will probably assume that any dictionary is comprehensive, so they do not need to be told that.

On the contrary, the vast majority of dictionaries are not comprehensive. Many people who "know what the word dictionary means" will never have seen a comprehensive dictionary in their life, and the rest won't necessarily assume that "any dictionary is comprehensive." This should be changed. Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "some" is redundant! And ... I have a dictionary of scientific terms, which is certainly not "comprehensive" in terms of the meaning intended. Tony (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

I propose replacing the first bracketed text (also known as the lead or introduction) with (also known as the lead, lede or introduction). The usage is common in publishing and distinguishes the entity discussed from a metal or a transitive verb meaning conduct. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Alternative names

Some argue that names like William "Billy" Bragg should not be used in the lead of articles with the part in quotations. I think this is pedantic removal of a useful feature, and would like to see this changed. Am I alone? Britmax (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In essence you are wanting to revisit this discussion from last November, when it was decided to recommend not having insertions like "Billy" in your example if it is regarded as a "common hypocorism". For what it's worth I share your doubts – for one thing, a reader who didn't grow up in an English-speaking country may well not know or guess that "Billy" is a diminutive for "William", and may think "I was looking for Billy! Whozis William bloke?" – but it may be too soon to attempt to reverse the RfC: Noyster (talk), 12:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The opinion piece in the latest Signpost criticised the trend toward more information included in parentheses in the first sentence of an article. Piotrus suggested an RfC on the matter, so I have opened one, as I don't believe one has been opened yet. Apologies if wrong.

Should the policy on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section discourage metadata included parenthetically in the first sentence?
What kinds of information should be included?
How many variants of each kind? Eg, how many languages should the name be listed in the first sentence?

birth and death dates
names in other languages
maiden and other previous names
pronunciation written in systems like jyutping and pinyin
scientific names
inline audio files of pronunciation

Current relevant policy:

Foreign language 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.

Pronunciation If the name of the article has a pronunciation that's not apparent from its spelling, include its pronunciation in parentheses after the first occurrence of the name. Most such terms are foreign words or phrases (mate, coup d'état), proper nouns (Ralph Fiennes, Tuolumne River, Tao Te Ching), or very unusual English words (synecdoche, atlatl). Do not include pronunciations for names of foreign countries whose pronunciations are well known in English (France, Poland). Do not include them for common English words with pronunciations that might be counterintuitive for learners (laughter, sword). If the name of the article is more than one word, include pronunciation only for the words that need it unless all are foreign (all of Jean van Heijenoort but only Cholmondeley in Thomas P. G. Cholmondeley). A fuller discussion of pronunciation can come later in the article.

Biographies The opening paragraph should usually have dates of birth and death. Birth and death dates are important information about the person being described, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context. Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can be in the lead if relevant to the person's notability, but they should not be mentioned in the opening brackets of the lead sentence alongside the birth and death dates. In some cases, subjects have legally changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well. In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out. It is common to give the maiden name (birth name) of a woman better known under her married name.

Organisms When a common (vernacular) name is used as the article title, the boldfaced common name is followed by the italic un-boldfaced scientific name in round parentheses in the opening sentence of the lead.

—A L T E R C A R I ✍ 06:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discourage any parenthetical information in first sentence Info is usually already duplicated in infobox or body. Expand {{Chinese}} so it works with non-Asian languages and even audio files, and can be used as a general language/pronunciation box. Rename it to {{langbox}} or some such. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 06:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]