Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 20

Using

• The 2018 FIFA World Cup was the 21st FIFA World Cup

For example, it seems like quite a failure for our readers that the lead of articles like 61st Annual Grammy Awards neither describe what the Grammy Awards are in plain English, nor contain a link to the main Grammy Awards topic. I believe application of MOS:BOLDTITLE is what is driving this negative outcome. The sole rationale given for MOS:BOLDTITLE in this instance is "some readers will miss the visual cue". I do not understand the logic of that for articles that are part of a series, where the article title is repeated verbatim in the text – the linking and bolding of the series article is surely just as effective a visual cue as bolding it? The current examples given in MOS:BOLDTITLE do not address this specific scenario as none of the article subjects are within a series, and all the examples achieve a reduction in redundancy and a plain English description, rather than hindering those aims as shown in the FIFA World Cup and Grammys examples. I believe linking of series articles should be an exception to MOS:BOLDTITLE on this basis. SFB 14:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

If we interpreted the title to be a descriptive one, we could probably avoid the issue altogether by not placing it in bold at all. Don't see that happening though.

MOS:AVOIDBOLD is so commonly violated. --Paul_012 (talk

) 11:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@

MOS:FIRST even says (emphasis mine): If possible, the page title should be the subject

of the first sentence. (I guess maybe that needs to read, "If convenient and without resorting to linguistic gymnastics" instead of "if possible". Many things are possible...)

However,

MOS:AVOIDBOLD.) -- FeRDNYC (talk

) 14:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That being said, series cues for articles that are effectively subpages of an overarching article (such as the examples you give, articles on specific events that are part of a recurring series, like awards shows or sports championships) do seem like they could be handled better. We have infobox and navbox linkages to the next and previous events in linear progressions, and we have the

WP:CLNT

even covers this particular case, really, in my reading.

Perhaps a hatnote template of some sort (akin to the disambiguation hatnotes)? Or, it could be that linking in the bold text, as you propose, is indeed the simplest solution. But I think it'd have to be proposed, discussed, and (if there is consensus) documented as an explicit exception to

MOS:BOLDAVOID, if it's to be applied in the article namespace without being subject to revision or reversion by other editors on basis of the currently-established policy. -- FeRDNYC (talk

) 15:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC: I agree with your points above, but I think you have not addressed the main concern, which is: why is a link considered problematic if it is in bold? It's clear that bolding is favoured to highlight the subject, that the key concepts should receive prominent links, and that the first sentence should avoid redundancy. The page currently fails to express why bolding wikilinks to key topics in the title name is an issue, beyond a stylistic issue (which should always be subject to variance in a project like Wikipedia). SFB 21:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Paul 012: an interesting point as you suggest that the better solution to BOLDAVOID is to remove the bolding, rather than the link, yet the majority of edits on this rule remove the link, which is of the most detriment to readers. SFB 21:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@

MOS:BOLDAVOID

content was added, and by which editor, may help in that search.) But the footnote on that section (to which you refer in your original post) provides some justification, and in full it reads:

Linking part of the bolded text is also discouraged because it changes the visual effect of bolding; some readers will miss the visual cue which is the purpose of using bold face in the first place.
— 

MOS:BOLDAVOID

footnote

In context, I find that kind of hard to argue with. Linking in the bold text does greatly reduce the visual effect of the bolding — in truth, it's not always easy to tell boldface linked text from un-bolded linked text. The link styling overpowers the font weight.

IOW, this:

Text that contains a long link

Looks far more like this:

Text that contains a long link

Than it looks like this:

Text that contains a long link

So, to whatever extent the subject-bolding in an article's first sentence has merit and is a useful thing for readers, I have to agree that linking from within that text greatly diminishes the visibility, and therefore the effectiveness, of that styling. (The actual value of bolding the subject is, of course, debatable, but

MOS:BOLDAVOID taken together seem like they reduce to, "If you're going to place a link in the bold text, just don't bother with the bolding, the effect is ruined", which as you note is basically Paul_012

's advice (though as they note, rarely followed), and, like I said, is something I find difficult to argue with.)

Ultimately, though, the "why" is kind of secondary / tangential — regardless why any particular policy was adopted, the fact is that it's policy, and therefore needs to either be followed, or changed through a formal process (outlined at

WP:GUIDANCE). -- FeRDNYC (talk

) 22:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

In my experience, not bolding linked wording is usually followed by significantly experienced editors. I, for example, follow it. It's the newbies and other less experienced editors who violate MOS:AVOIDBOLD with regard to bolding linked text. Also keep in mind that guidelines are not policies. The community is stricter about policies.

(Please do ping me on replies, it's lucky I saw this.) How am I distinguishing them? By the paragraph they're attached to in

MOS:LEAD

.

Links should not be placed in the

MOS:BOLDAVOID

If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy.
— 

MOS:AVOIDBOLD

(The third-and-final paragraph in that section is

MOS:BOLDAVOID

as covering the entire section, and therefore representing all three paragraphs. But since that reading doesn't allow for easy distinction between the first and second paragraph, the each-shortcut-attached-to-one-paragraph reading is far more conducive to discussion of the guidelines 😏 in question.

Also keep in mind that guidelines are not policies. The community is stricter about policies. A fair point. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The text I removed is making an incorrect claim that in Alfred Matthew "Weird Al" Yankovic, the quotes around "Weird Al" should not be in boldface. Checking the history of this text, it was added in this change about a year ago, so it's one editor's interpretation of the previous long-standing guideline. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I noticed several articles, whose plural form is not intuitive has the plural is beside it in parentheses. I was surprised to see there is not mention of this in

Cheers, Dig _deeper ^talk 16:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dig deeper: Huh. You know, I hadn't really picked up on that. Not sure how I feel about it, seems sort of Wiktionary-ish. I especially hate the way it's done at Genus, stuck in with the pronunciation(s) like that, using pl. instead of just taking a whole four extra characters to write out "plural". It wasn't nearly so... extra... when the plural was originally added to the article. (Which, for the record, was done in the fourth edit following the article's creation, way back in February 2002! It's hard to overstate how really oblivious I've had to be, to have failed to pick up on it before now.)

I suppose technically the plural inclusion is covered by this:

When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including

MOS:FIRST

However, I don't think it would hurt to be a bit more explicit. However, I wouldn't dwell on it too much. Probably it's sufficient to just make the above something like, When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including plural forms (particularly if they're unusual or confusing) or synonyms. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

However, try not to overuse "However". #DontBeLikeMe -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'm surprised I've only recently noticed this myself. Maybe this is an example of an Invisible Gorilla Test. I made the change according to your example. I provided an example as well. Hopefully through the example people will not use colons or wikilink the word plural.

As an aside, I agree that genus is not ideal with the pronunciation mixed in. A bit distracting. Personally I think only the most difficult to pronounce words should have a pronunciation guide in the lead. A wikitionary link at the lower right of the article can provide readers with most pronunciation details.

Dig _deeper ^talk 20:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"However". I see it now. :) Dig _deeper ^talk 21:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this, this, this and this, I fully reverted the introduction to its long-standing form. If there are any aspects that actually need changing, then let's discuss, but something like the "As a general rule of thumb" piece regarding the leads of articles has thorough consensus via various discussions, including

I think that the only languages that should be used are the official language(s) of the countries or regions. Because some populations in countries have adopted their colonizers languages and after independence they changed their official language to their native language. However, some people still adding the colonizers language to countries lede paragraph which sounds like politically incorrect. For example, some people are adding the name of Ethiopia in Italian language in the article of Ethiopia. I can't find a relevant guideline in this article that says we should only use official languages so I propose adding it.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility about the recommended length of lead sections. Interested users may wish to contribute to the discussion there. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought I remembered a prohibition against "see" links from the end of the introduction's paragraphs to specific article sections (such as I removed here) but I can't find it and am not sure if it's been rescinded or otherwise. Are such links preferred, discouraged, or neutral practice now? EllenCT (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we're saying it explicitly, because editors just don't do it (like, 99.99% of them don't). If we're getting some tiny fraction playing

MOS:YOU obviously apply here: WP doesn't write instructionally "at" the reader except when really necessary, e.g. for navigational needs between articles. Even then, it's better to just integrate material as in-flow links, e.g. When the company [[#New headquarter|relocated to Denver]], ... (e.g., we encourage the paring down of "See also" sections by working the cross-referenced articles into the main article text instead). But there's generally no need to do even this in a lead section. The entire point of the lead is that it's a tight summary of an article rich in detail, and everyone already understand that the details are to be found below the lead. Using explicitly Wikipedia-self-referential "(see [[#Some section|Some section]])" cross-references in the lead is just terrible encyclopedia writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  17:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe we've only had discussion on this point, no specific guidance in the MOS-proper. A reason why one perhaps should not put such links in articles is that they duplicate the immediate table of contents. It might also

WP:SURPRISE someone expecting to go to a different article. --Izno (talk

) 00:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

EllenCT, that kind of link normally shouldn't be happening. However, it is okay to link to other parts of the article. Instead of See the section on [[#Youth]], editors could write something like [[#Youth|Rising use by youth]] worries public health officials. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I said that too, but we shouldn't do this in the lead section for reasons Izno and I covered above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

When I first read "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles...are placed in bold" per

This could be solved with commas or dashes, but I like my previous solution that simply omitted the phrase "Only the first occurrence of the title" entirely. Since we've already told people to "display [the article title] in bold as early as possible in the first sentence", it just seems repetitive and awkward to re-state it here. Any thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Absent any comments/objections, I've  Implemented my proposed wording. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Guess I'll comment. I do not understand the issue. "The word 'only' is just limiting how many 'occurrence[s] of the title' should be bolded."? Why would the terms need to be bolded again? The title of the article should be bolded in the lead (and article overall) once unless it's a

MOS:BOLD

.

Mathglot hasn't been back on Wikipedia since 17:22, 26 February 2020. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I already described how the wording is ambiguous and could be read as contradicting MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. This has caused confusion at Talk:Reverse racism in the past.

If repeatedly bolding the title phrase is a problem, then that could be addressed separately from "significant alternative titles"; otherwise it seems to imply that these are the only appropriate uses of boldface.

We could at least break up the first sentence of

MOS:BOLDSYN for clarity, like this:

Use boldface only for the the first occurrence of the title. Significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article)^[13] should also be in boldface: ...

If there are no objections I'll go ahead and make this change. —Sangdeboeuf (talk

) 01:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing the issue, but I guess your latest proposed change is fine.

SMcCandlish, any thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where SMcCandlish was involved in this discussion. Is there a reason for pinging only this specific user? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Reason? Because SMcCandlish often works on WP:Manual of Style pages (as is clear even by sections above this one), often offers good advice, and I often it's common for me to ping him for his opinion on policy and guideline matters. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a highly watched talk page; there's no need to ping individual users who haven't chosen to take part in a given discussion. Doing so could give the appearance of

request for comment instead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk

) 05:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Really? Are you really pulling some "it's canvassing" or "it has the appearance of canvassing" nonsense right now? It's absurd, but not surprising from you. You always try to start some silly argument or "you're not behaving quite right" argument with me, which is why I stated "Guess I'll comment" above. I was dreading replying to you. It's also why I first ignored this thread. Do you think we are not allowed to ping editors for their opinions, even on highly watched talk pages, without pinging others? WP:Canvassing doesn't apply at all in this case. I will ping who I want to ping unless it can be validly considered a WP:Canvassing violation. Obviously, SMcCandlish is thoroughly intertwined with WP:Manual of Style pages. I will ping him to such pages when I want to, just like I will ping copyright expert Moonriddengirl to discussions about copyright for her expert opinion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

And if you want to continue arguing over this pinging matter, you can argue it with yourself. I'm not wasting any time on such silliness. Any "Flyer behaved inappropriately" nonsense can be taken to the appropriate forum. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing much for me to say here. I think the tone of the above comments speaks for itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It certainly does. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it was right that this was reverted. Btw "such terms" (that redirect) are highly likely to be used in the first sentence, in fact that is the normal place for alternate names or terms, or am I missing something? Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: by "such terms", I was referring to redirects other than alternative titles, as described under MOS:BOLDREDIRECT: "(for example, subtopics of the article's topic...)". Subtopics usually aren't all listed in the first sentence of an article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but they should mostly be mentioned in the lead, and might well be high up there. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That may well be true, but the section under discussion (and my comment) focuses only on the lead sentence, rather than the lead section as a whole. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The original is good (that is, I endorse Flyer's revert). Guidelines should give guidance. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. My point above was that this specific guideline fails to offer clear and helpful guidance. Do you have any comment on the proposal to break up the first sentence of BOLDSYN highlighted above? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

On the opening question, I don't think there is a conflict, because

MOS:BOLDSYN

. But BOLDSYN may not be written with quite enough clarity, particularly when it comes to cases like a redirect going to a section where the term is bolded, but it also being a synonym of the subject and appearing bolded in the lead. I've actually thought this many times before, but never really gotten around to working on it, so I'm glad someone else has raised the matter. BOLDSYN's "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles ... are placed in bold" needs an "except " clause, or at least a footnote, about such a case. The supposition that "only" is [intended to be] limited to just part of that sentence is incorrect. But the sentence doesn't cover every eventuality that it should. Last I looked into it, the actual operational consensus (i.e., what most editors are doing) amounts to this:

• Boldface any noteworthy synonym in the lead, if it is used in contemporary English (or least occurs non-trivially in modern sources). If there are an excessive number of such terms (e.g., some plants with long-term human usage have 20 or more common/vernacular names in various places, even just in English!), then don't do this, since it results in a huge block of boldfacing. Similarly, there is no need to boldface really obscure/obsolete terms, nor foreignisms that are not generally used in English. For example, do not boldface obsolete Early Modern English, Middle English, etc., spellings given as part of an etymology, even if the etym. material is in the lead section. In short, this is not the International Festival of Boldfacing.
• Boldface any noteworthy term that redirects to the article (even something like the name of a non-notable corporate officer that redirects to the article on the notable company). This helps readers to understand why they ended up where they did when they followed a redirect, and to find what they were actually looking for. This should be done at the occurrence to which the redirect leads (i.e., at the anchor/vanchor of the term that the redirect points to, or at first occurrence of the term in the section if the redir goes to a section). The same term can also be boldfaced in the lead
  iff
  it is a synonym of the topic and occurs in the lead but the redirect does not point to the lead. If the term is not a synonym (e.g. the officer of corporation example) and appears in the lead but is redirected to somewhere else in the article, then do not bold it in the lead.
• Do not re-boldface a later occurrence of any term that appears bolded in the lead, unless it is right where a redirect for that term leads.
• Boldface is not generally used otherwise (except in pre-automated stuff in the site-wide style sheets, like the default display of section headings, table headers, the output of <dt> elements, etc.). However, there's an iffy quasi-convention of using manual boldfacing for pseudo-subheadings when the table of contents is already overly complex. When this is done, it should be as '''Pseudo-subheading here''' on its own line; any instance of ;Pseudo-subheading here should be fixed on-sight, per
  MOS:DLIST
  , because that is invalid markup (it's actually saying "this is a description/definition/association list entry – a <dt> – of which a description/definition follows", but it isn't one, isn't part of a <dl> list, and has no associated <dd> element after it).

I'm not sure how to compress that into simpler language without some work, and I have other stuff to do today. It should all be covered at MOS:BOLD, and only summarized as it pertains to leads in particular at

MOS:LEAD's MOS:BOLDSYN, with a cross-ref. to MOS:BOLD for more detail.

PS: I don't feel canvassed; I'm one of the main MoS "shepherds" and ultimately actually wrote a lot of this material, so if part of it is unclearly worded, or has drifted out-of-step with the ground truth (either by later edits to it or because consensus practice has overwhelmingly changed), I'm probably in a good position to comment on the matter. I don't have a particular view on this to push. I care that the guidelines reflect actual best practices, and that they do not substantively change without very good reason (non-trivial changes to MoS – actually different, rather than just clarified, rules – can affect thousands, potentially millions, of articles).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  17:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's good practice to ping only one user given that there are other "shepherds" who could also comment (who would doubtless also say they only care about reflecting "best practices", even though their opinions may differ on what that means). But here we are.

Points #2 and #4 above ("Boldface any noteworthy term that redirects to the article ..." and "Boldface is not generally used otherwise") seem covered by MOS:BOLD. I'm mainly concerned with the part of BOLDSYN beginning with "Only the first occurrence ...", which seems to be awkwardly combining points #1 and #3 ("Boldface any noteworthy synonym in the lead" and "Do not re-boldface a later occurrence of any term that appears bolded in the lead ..."). Based on the given "operational consensus", I think it would clear things up to treat these separately, like so:

Significant

WP:CREEP. The example sentence(s) could be tweaked to emphasize the relative points of each statement as well. Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk

) 20:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That gets the gist of it, pretty well. I think I would clarify the second part a little, to avoid WIKILAWYER/GAMING misinterpretation as "that means I can boldface it at every occurrence". Maybe something like

Only use boldface for the first occurrence of a given term, unless the term is a synonym of the title that redirects to a specific section, in which case boldface it if it occurs in the lead and again at its

WP:POLICYFORK problems is that when Page A is using/mentioning/summarizing a rule from Page B, we ensure that Page A's material has an in situ cross-ref. (of one style or the other) to Page B's pertinent and controlling material. Otherwise people are apt to make changes at Page A that make it conflict with Page B over time. That may even by why this very thread is open. PS: It's also worded (with "if it occurs in the lead") to make it clear that not everything that redirects to this page must necessarily be mentioned and bolded in the lead. Yet another loophole closed!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  10:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

What about this for the second part:

Only use boldface for the first occurrence of a given term, unless the term is a synonym of the title that redirects to a specific part of the article. Here, boldface the term once if it occurs in the lead and once again in the part

smaller subdivisions of text such as individual paragraphs. I think we only need to say "first occurrence" once; it should implicitly apply in both situations described ("once if it occurs in the lead and once again in the [other part]"). I think most users will instinctively want to emphasize the first (after the lead) occurrence if anything. —Sangdeboeuf (talk

) 12:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

 SMcCandlish, thanks for commenting. As you know, editors (including me) are often pinged for their opinions because of their knowledge on a topic. Not everything requires an RfC. And it's often that watchers of a policy or guideline don't pay attention to every little thing or all of the happenings going on at a policy or guideline talk page. Even in this case, it took me commenting for others to weigh in. There are times that I ping you or multiple editors, especially if I know that the editor(s) watch the policy or guideline. I'm under no obligation to ping every possible watcher in a case like this. If I were pinging editors to specifically agree with me, that would be different. But you and I have disagreed plenty, and will no doubt continue to do so. In this latest case, for example, I'm not seeing why the term would need to be bolded both in the lead and in a section; I don't agree with that approach. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I pretty often also ping someone who I think may have background info or whatever, without doing a big forest of pings. It depends on the nature of the discussion (e.g., here trying to clarify some stuff, while in another thread it might be more of a dispute, or a !voting situation like an RfC, where canvassing concerns would be higher). With that in mind, I would suggest that the stridence in the earlier part of this thread lends to an air of dispute, which increases the canvassing perception. Meanwhile, the job to be done is actually just minor copyediting to reaffirm the best practices in clearer wording, not change the practices. So the disputation is illusory, I would think, and perhaps more to do with personality friction. (I would know, since I rub people the wrong way all the time! [4] Ha ha.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, pinging aside, I think this might need an RfC. I state that because I know that other editors would also question the need to bold a term both in the lead and in a section. I've seen this times before, and I obviously question it as well. Again, why would we need to bold a term both in the lead and in a section?

Johnbod and Johnuniq, since you commented above, what do you think about bolding a term both in the lead and in a section? I mean, the same term. Do you think it's beneficial? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It might be appropriate in some long articles. I wouldn't normally do it, but I wouldn't like to see it wholly outlawed. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

My line of thinking on it is this: If we are redirecting the term to a section, then why are we mentioning and bolding the term in the lead? Sure, it might need to be mentioned in the lead. But mentioning and bolding it both in the lead and in a section? Why not just let the redirect go to the article without pointing it to a section? Readers will see the "Terminology" section if the term is elaborated on there. If the term is elaborated on in a section where it's not clear from the title that the section addresses the term/topic in further detail, then I think it's best to tweak that heading, but I'm not seeing that the term should be bolded there if it's already bolded in the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

We do both because the bolding serves different purposes for different readers who arrive at the article different ways. In the lead it means "these are synonyms of the subject". In a section you were redirected to it doesn't "mean" anything, but it serves the purpose of making it clear that this term redirects here, and it helps followers of that redirect find what they are looking for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Still, I wouldn't bold in the section if the term is bolded in the lead. I wouldn't redirect the term to a section if it's mentioned and bolded in the lead. I would think that it's best to have that redirect go to the article in general since the term is mentioned and bolded in the lead. And then, like I stated, readers will see the "Terminology" section if the term is elaborated on there. If there is no Terminology section, there should be a section heading that alerts readers to the area where they can read more about the term and/or topic. Well, unless such a section is not needed since mentioning the term as an alternative term in the lead is enough.

I see that Mathglot is back. Maybe Mathglot will comment in this section on this topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Linking to a section is long-standing practice. This guideline should reflect that. I personally don't care whether a redirected term is bolded once or twice. But any proposal to change how we target redirects should be taken up at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. —Sangdeboeuf (talk

) 23:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

And I haven't disputed that linking to a section is long-standing practice. I've engaged in that practice. That is not what I'm objecting to. What I'm objecting to is clear in my "02:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)" and "23:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)" above posts. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You said, I wouldn't redirect the term to a section if it's mentioned and bolded in the lead. Redirecting to a specific section depends on whether the redirected term is more relevant to the material contained in that section or the article as a whole, not on whether someone happened to boldface the term in the lead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, my "02:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)" and "23:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)" posts are focused on bolding the terms both in the lead and in a section. I do not believe that a term should be bolded both in the lead and in a section. Yes, I stated, "I wouldn't redirect the term to a section if it's mentioned and bolded in the lead." I stand by that. That statement mentions redirecting because this discussion also concerns redirecting. I am stating what I would do. If the term is mentioned and bolded in the lead, I feel that readers should see that right off the bat. I do not think they should be redirected to a section in that case. My "23:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)" post already goes over my feelings on the matter. And these are not simply my feelings, since this is commonly practiced across Wikipedia. If the term is more relevant to the material contained in a section, I will redirect the term there, but I'm not going to bold the term there if it's already mentioned and bolded in the lead or if I mention and bold the term in the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"I wouldn't bold in the section if the term is bolded in the lead. I wouldn't redirect the term to a section if it's mentioned and bolded in the lead." Well, that doesn't match actual practice. I already gave a really obvious example why something should be bolded and link to a section, but not appear in the lead, e.g. a name of a company officer in an "Boardmembers and officers" section at a company article. If you want to propose that we stop boldfacing redirects terms in sections, then you should open an RfC at

WT:MOSBOLD, since that really has nothing to do with leads. I can already predict what the outcome will be. :-) Again, there is no connection between boldfacing in the lead as a synonym, and bolding in the body as a redirect link-target. They serve different purposes, and most often apply to different things. Only in odd cases is something going to be a bolded synonym in the lead yet also be a redirect to a section (or anchored paragraph in a section). It'll mostly be when something is sometimes a synonym of the general topic but also has a more specifically defined, narrow usage (usually within a specific field) and we expect that the readership is mostly looking for that specific sense and should be redirected right to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  12:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding pronunciations in leads at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#cluttering with double brackets. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. Nardog (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

A Request for Comments has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education asking the following question: How should the ledes of articles about colleges and universities describe the general reputation, prestige, or relative ranking(s) of the institution? Your participation and input would be greatly appreciated! ElKevbo (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

It's 2020 now. The vast majority of readers are using systems that are able to display a wide range of scripts. The slim potential benefit foreign character warning boxes used to offer is now outweighed by the clutter they cause. Several of them have been deleted at TfD. Maybe it's time to remove endorsement of their use from the MOS? --Paul_012 (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

For characters that have been in Unicode since the beginning, certainly (the templates that got TfD'ed were all for character sets that have been covered since the 1990s). However, newer additions to Unicode remain problematic on many systems. For example, I will be very surprised if Tangut script shows up properly for anyone in this discussion. I seem to have only minor problems with anything up to Unicode 4.1 (besides Mongolian, Manchu, and Baybayin), but after that it's boxes everywhere. Others' mileage may vary — see below table.

Separately, using hatnotes instead of boxes might be one way to reduce the clutter. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of info. You do have a point in that there's still potential benefit for the recently added, more obscure scripts. Maybe bringing the older boxes to TfD, while continuing to allow the rest, would be the simplest solution. Using hatnotes would just move the clutter to top of the page, which IMO would probably be worse, since such uses directly contradict

WP:HAT. --Paul_012 (talk

) 15:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've nominated the templates for scripts up to Unicode 3.2, except the ones with further comments below, for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 17#Foreign character warning boxes. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC) The so-called "basic" Vietnamese

Are there any objections to my making the change? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but there shouldn't be a comma before the gloss. Fixed. Macrakis (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not? it separates the phrase, which is distinct from the root word. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Standard practice in every journal and book I can think of is not to separate glosses from the root with a comma. Here are some explicit style guides addressing this:

• "Notes on Linguistic Style", p. 4
• "Language Acquisition Style Sheet", p. 2: "Do not separate the form from its gloss with a comma"
• "Language Style Sheet" Section 6, p. 6: "No comma precedes the gloss".

Reverting. --Macrakis (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay; thanks for the examples. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I had meant to address this myself quite some time ago, but forgot.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Have noticed some editors removing parentheses from lead sentences with the rationale that this is more useful for users of search engines like Google or Alexa, which often omit the bracketed text. Is this something that should be borne in mind when writing a good opening sentence, or if not, can it teach us anything? I can see it might be helpful for the common names of plants, where the article title is the Latin name, and an unbracketed lead sentence won't mention any common names. --

This practice is mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Organisms. Full disclosure: I had advocated for including that mention, so I obviously think it is a good idea in the cases of plants with scientific name titles. Perhaps there are some other topics where it may useful to avoid parentheses to ensure that alternative names are displayed in search engines (LVMH opens with "LVMH Moët Hennessy – Louis Vuitton SE ..., also known as LVMH"; I don't think it would be helpful to place either of the bolded names in paretheses in that case). Plantdrew (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The dispute about Down/Down's syndrome has moved to Tourette syndrome. The main claim is that "national variations" are significant and therefore need to be represented in the first sentence. I am wondering whether LEADALT would benefit from some examples.

For example:

• Is a small
  WP:ENGVAR-type difference spelling, such as leukemia/leukaemia/leukæmia, considered "significant" in terms of LEADALT? (These are not considered "significant" in terms of redirects; everything in Category:Redirects from alternative spellings
  is considered non-printworthy.)
• Or does LEADALT's significance level require a difference that is more than a slight spelling change, such as elevator/lift and truck/lorry?
• What about something like "Polycystic ovary syndrome" vs "Polycystic ovary disorder"? That isn't a purely spelling/punctuation difference. Is that likely to be significant?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think we need a rule for this (or for may other things that have unfortunately got rules). Some editors may feel like the alt spellings are relevant, and sometimes they are -- "sulfuric" and "sulphuric" are just US/UK variants, but are somewhat of a special case, for example). Other editors may feel that they are unnecessary and remove them. So what? This sort of consistency has zero value for readers.
  Consistency in this and many other style choices should not be a goal of Wikipedia, even because we cannot ever get close to it. It is hearthbreaking to see so much editor's effort being wasted in a vain and pointless attempt to achieve it.
  On the other hand, all the variant names (and etymologies, and variant pronunciations) do not need to be crammed into the first sentence. Instead of

A fumbedumble (US), also called dumblefumble, formerly called dumbledumble and called fumblefumble in the UK (from the

Elamite 𒈗𒁕𒇻 f^umbl "fumble" and Coptic ⲡ︤ϩ︦ⲣ︦ⲃ︥ dhwmmbble "dumble") is a fumble that is also a dumble

.

one should write

A fumbledumble is a

Elamite 𒈗𒁕𒇻 f^umbl "fumble" and Coptic

ⲡ︤ϩ︦ⲣ︦ⲃ︥ dhwmmbble "dumble".

--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• A less condensed query might have got more replies. I think a specific term like "leukemia" should have all current ENGVAR options in the lead, but not necessarily ones that have not been current for say 50+ years. Also both "Polycystic ovary syndrome" vs "Polycystic ovary disorder" (not always giving both in full - maybe "Polycystic ovary syndrome or disorder" will work in some cases. This seems to be what we normally do: "An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (British English) ...." and so on. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Johnbod, what do you think about long lists, such as in BarrelProof's list of minor variants below? Paul 012 suggests a general limit of two variants (presumably not including initialisms, so "non-governmental organization or organisation (NGO)" would be counted as two rather than three). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    • See below. If necessary, variants can be put in a note, as at Anthony van Dyck, who like many Netherlandish artists who worked internationally has 20 or more variants listed by ULAN. The article begins: "Sir Anthony van Dyck (Dutch pronunciation: [vɑn ˈdɛi̯k], many variant spellings;(ref)ULAN entry. Originally "van Dijck", with the "IJ" digraph, in Dutch. Anthony is the English for the Dutch Anthonis or Antoon, though Anthonie, Antonio or Anthonio was also used; in French he is often Antoine, in Italian Anthonio or Antonio. In English a capitalised "Van" in Van Dyck was more usual until recent decades (used by Waterhouse for example), and "Dyke" was often used during his lifetime and later (and is usual for the beard style).</ref>" Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• To me it seems really silly to list the minor spelling variations in the lead as distinct names "A non-governmental organization, also known as a non-governmental organisation or nongovernmental organization or nongovernmental organisation, is an institution that ..." or "A driver's license, also known as a driving license or driving licence or driver licence or driver license or driver's licence, is a ..." —BarrelProof (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • These are ENGVAR etc. variants of common words, & totally mutually comprehensible. They should not be listed. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

    Johnbod, I've been trying to reconcile your two shorter comments, which say that we should include all current ENGVAR options, but that these are current ENGVAR options, so they should not be listed. Is the difference that "organization" is a common word, and "encyclopedia" is not? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

    • Not so much common, though I suppose that's a factor, but a single letter substitution (s/z, c/s see BarrelProof above) seems different from different numbers of letters - encyclopaedia, "archaeology" etc. Does that help? If the word were obscure, even the single letter ones should probably be given. And I can live without giving "labor/labour". Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Articles seem mostly okay with two variants of the bolded item; more than that and things tend to devolve into absurdity as in the above example. Footnotes should probably be preferred in such cases. Not sure about minor spelling differences as in the original query. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• In my opinion, things as small as whether something has a hyphen in it or not, whether organize is spelled with an 's' or a 'z', whether labour is spelled with a 'u' or not, whether licence is spelled with a 'c' or an 's' and encyclopadia versus encyclopaedia, are so trivial that listing the variations is just pure clutter and unhelpful to readers. Our articles should provide information about topics, not minor differences in spelling. For spelling, people should consult a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• A good amount of the variations in spelling or regional usage can go in the Infobox. I am in agreement with listing at most two variations (example at celiac) because not everyone is as well versed in variant spellings as Wikipedian are; and I agree with the way Alzheimer's handles the alternates with apostrophes. Beyond that, I don't believe we should list more than two variants (they can go to the infobox), and we don't need to list alternate uses of eponymous apotrophes (those also can go to the infobox). Disorder vs. syndrome hinges on what is most commonly used in high-quality recent sources; use what sources use, and list others in the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Assuming that there's an infobox at all. Many articles don't have them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems very confusing that the shortcuts

I don't think there's anything preventing it from being changed, it's more that nobody's really been looking to change it. That they're adjacent is a large part of the reason why they were given such similar names, since they designate closely related and only subtly distinct aspects of the MOS. (Think about the far worse confusion it would cause, if those two names were assigned to completely different MOS rules that had absolutely nothing to do with each other. That would be a problem!)

Because

MOS:AVOIDBOLD

are shorthands to separate subsections of the same MOS topic, either one will take you to the right place, so in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter which is which. Most of us confuse them all the time. It's just not really a problem.

The way I look at it, the point of the two links is not so much to clearly delineate the rules, it's so that it's possible to post a direct link to those specific subsections. Yes, they're easily confused, because those rules are easily confused — not to mention, frequently conflated so that it's rare one of them applies without the other having at least some relevance as well. If you find yourself needing to link/reference one of them but can't remember which tag goes to which (I know I never can), just use

MOS:BOLD. It points to the entire section containing both. so it's valid in either case. You can't go wrong there. -- FeRDNYC (talk

) 21:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@

MOS:BOLDTITLE) are the larger-topic shortcuts I should've been referencing. -- FeRDNYC (talk

) 22:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info, it is appreciated. --Jameboy (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

In an article about a living person, we boldface the full name of the person on the first mention. Should we not do the same with a corporation or other organization?

This issue has arisen recently where Banan14kab has been unbolding the trailing part of the name of fraternities, bolding only the common name portion. By way of example, here is their edit to Alpha Phi Alpha: [5]. I can't find a clear statement in the MOS about this, but articles about other corporate entities (e.g., IBM) do bold the complete name, including "Corporation" or "Inc.". It also is less than jarring than having the dangling unbolded part of the name in the sentence.

Is there explicit guidance on this? If not, should we add something about corporations and organizations? —C.Fred (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred, this is mentioned at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)#First sentence. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed that people have started polluting biographies of many scientists who were members of different societies by adding acronyms of the institutions and fellowships right after the scientist's name. If the pronunciation of the name was given, the acronyms would be between the name and the pronunciation. So we have in

Um. This is exactly what postnominals are and what they are for. It is not a new use. It is not a misuse of the template. It is the standard convention for formally writing out the full names of academics in the UK and the British Commonwealth. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hm... but do they all need to be in the first sentence? Look at this one: "Lise Meitner ForMemRS /ˈliːzə ˈmaɪtnər/; German: [liː.zə ˈmaɪ̯t.nɐ] (listen); 7 November 1878 – 27 October 1968)". I'd think that /ˈliːzə ˈmaɪtnər/ is how her name, and not ForMemRS is pronounced? MOS says lede should be in plain English, and these look like grocery store codes that no one understands - so why have them (there)? Can you tell what OM CBE RDI FRS FREng FCSD FIEE stand for? I don't see these codes in Britannica, that tells me they're not absolutely necessary... even in Britain. Ponor (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

In the case of Meitner, foreign membership in the Royal Society would likely not have been something she would have used in formal versions of her name (this sort of thing is a British convention and she was not British) so I think it's ok to omit it from the lead. Instead I think she might have used something like "Prof. Dr. Lise Meitner Dr. rer. nat. habil." but we don't tend to do that here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The MOS page that covers this is actually

MOS:POSTNOM), "Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article... but should be omitted from the lead." --Paul_012 (talk

) 00:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

These are honors, not degrees or qualifications (and not even honorary degrees, but a different kind of honor) so they are not covered by that sentence. That sentence tells us that we shouldn't write "Dr. Andre Geim, Ph.D. Hon.D.Sc." (degrees or honorary degrees) but that's not what's happening here. Postnominals like FRS are no different in usage than other non-academic honors that we also use postnominals for like the CBE that appears in Dyson's name. In the first example given of Geim, the same usage (stripped down a little to list only the most important of these honors, the FRS) can be seen in non-Wikipedia works talking about him, like https://epsrc.ukri.org/newsevents/news/geimwinstopaward/. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with David Eppstein: it isn't pollution, it's appropriately formal for an encyclopaedia. Correct use of {{Post-nominals}} means that I don't have to know what "OM CBE RDI FRS FREng FCSD FIEE" stand for: I can click on the links to find out. Fellowship of the Royal Society, and perhaps to a lesser extent fellowship of any chartered professional institution, is not trivial (in the UK their establishment is governed by Royal charter). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The James Dyson example is clearly excessive, and the last two (FCSD and FIEE) at least very much appear to be professional memberships rather than "honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject", as prescribed in the MOS page. His profile page on the Royal Society website, for example, lists only "Sir James Dyson CBE FREng FRS". In any case, this discussion should probably be moved to WT:Manual of Style/Biography. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You continue to be mistaken. Membership in CSD or IET (the newer initials of IEE) would probably not be worth mentioning anywhere in the article. Fellowship, on the other hand, is (for many but not all societies) a select honor reserved only for members with the highest levels of accomplishment, enough that we consider it an automatic criterion for notability (

WP:PROF#C3). The fellowships you mention, in CSD and IET, look to my investigation to be honors of this type. —David Eppstein (talk

) 21:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

To be elected a Fellow of one of those august bodies is a big deal. To be elected a Fellow of no less than four of them is a massive huge deal. Not many people manage that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected. But are they "widely recognized organizations that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject"? It may be a huge deal worth discussing in the article body, but doesn't seem to be within the spirit of the guideline, which says, "When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters or seldom uses them (common among heads of state and members of royal families), they should be omitted from the lead, and the titles only described in the main body of the article." --Paul_012 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There was a discussion in 2018 about the number provided in any given page, at least as part of the lead. WT:Manual of Style/Biography/2018 archive#MOS:POSTNOM limit proposal --Izno (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

An editor is deleting material from a lede, on his understanding that since it is a BLP, it should not contain any negative information in the lede. The related talk page discussion is here. Can someone take a look? Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:3CC4:95F3:F526:24C0 (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

What does the ideal first sentence of "History of X" articles look like?

MOS:LEADSENTENCE requires a statement of "what, or who, the subject is", which is not easy to apply to these articles. Across the project it is interpreted in different ways, such as:

1. Stating how broad the history is (e.g.
   History of Slavery, History of saffron
   )
2. Stating when the history started (e.g. History of the United States, History of Baltimore City College)
3. Stating what X is (e.g. History of Gillingham F.C. or History of the British farthing)
4. Stating X's notability (e.g. History of the Wales national football team (1876–1976) or History of Israel)

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This RfC is unnecessary. Each example gives a statement of "what, or who, the subject is". The MOS doesn't need to clarify more specifically how to do so. This is just
  WP:CREEP. The fact that each option has a Featured Article as an example shows that this simply is not a problem.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?}
  22:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bait30: thanks. The problem is that each example does not gives a statement of "what, or who, the subject is". That would mean a tautological sentence along the lines of "This article covers the history of X." or "The History of X refers to the past events in X", which we try to avoid. Instead we randomly settle on some of the options above. WP:CREEP is not relevant here as we are not talking about an instruction, just some soft advice. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Soft advice belongs in essays, not in the MOS. We do not need to prescribe robotic madlib templates for our article content. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi David Eppstein, I agree, we should not be prescribing anything. Just soft advice. I did not suggest in the original post that we should put advice directly in the MOS. Or even in an essay. It could just sit here on a talk page RFC discussion. Rather than being negative, perhaps you could share your view on the actual question? That would be appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BRD and come to a consensus on the talk page.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?}
  02:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Not really a suitable issue for an Rfc, as others have said. I don't see it would be a good idea to mandate, or even give soft advice, for any general contents for a first sentence. The best form will vary. Some subjects are obscure and need more basic introduction, & others don't. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Break

@David Eppstein, Bait30, and Johnbod: honestly guys I find these comments very disappointing. This is a good faith effort to think through something that has been unclear for at least 15 years, and you are rushing to shut it down without engaging.

On reflection, perhaps my question was too narrowly worded, and perhaps putting it as an RfC seemed to serve only to raise the temperature rather than encourage outsiders to comment as I had hoped. I don't understand it, but here we are.

If I haven't lost you already, can I try this a different way? Perhaps my real point is that I have been here for more than a decade and I am still entirely unclear on how the first sentence of an article with a "descriptive title" is supposed to be. Currently this page says: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is... If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. However, if the article title is merely descriptive... the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text."

...So the page explicitly points to the scenario where the "article title is merely descriptive", but it does not give any sense of what to do with the first sentence in that situation. I put all these WP:FAs as examples, and Bait30 did the same, to point out the situation in the best areas of our encyclopaedia. But if you think that is all over the place, try looking at the same but in lower quality articles.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Your question has the same character as asking what format the first sentence of a novel should take. It is not a situation where boilerplate is appropriate. The guidance you quote, asking for a description of the topic and warning against trying to shoehorn the exact title into the sentence, seems adequate to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

But we are not writing novels. We are supposed to have some structure.

Do you consider there should be any difference between the first sentence of a subject-article subsection (e.g. United States#History) and the first sentence of a descriptive article lead (History of the United States)? Personally I do – I think all articles should have an overview in the first sentence, not least because that is what shows up in search engines.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you said which of the many examples now given above you don't like, and why? Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, the ones I think are plain wrong are examples 3 and 4 in the list at the top of this thread. They are not giving an overview of the History of X, but rather telling us what X is or what is notable about X. I believe this is because the guidance here is confusing: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is" is ambiguous when "the article title is merely descriptive" – some editors clearly consider that by subject we mean X rather than History of X. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't much like History of Israel, but the others seem fine - the first sentence briefly defines the subject, then it's straight into the history. Really it's usually better to look at paragraphs rather than sentences. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the others above that this is not something we need to make uniform across all pages, since different subjects will have different elements that it makes sense to put first, and a little variation is okay. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  ... and a lot of variation is even better. Thincat (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

So why have a manual of style at all? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the following sentence has been removed as 'misplaced':[6]

'This section also gets most frequently translated and included in non-English Wikipedias.'

@Flyer22 Frozen: and other editors: I'd like to provide my rationale for including this sentence.

The lead section is due to time constraints often the only section that gets translated when translating articles to other Wikipedias. The sentence contributes to the understanding of the lead section from this viewpoint and as such provides another reason to structuring it as a short article summary and with a balanced point of view. I find this reason important enough to include the sentence in the guideline, specifically in the paragraph that provides the reasons why the lead section should be "written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view". For this reason, I don't consider it misplaced there.

I appreciate any comment on this issue. -TadejM ^{my talk} 22:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that belongs in the introduction, at least not in its previous form. If not covered lower, it especially doesn't belong in the introduction. All of that is why I reverted.

Let's wait and see what others state...if they state anything. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer22 Frozen. Thanks for your comment. To move on here, I would appreciate if you provided the rationale (why don't you consider this sentence to belong in the intro). What form would you consider suitable? --TadejM ^{my talk} 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I already gave a rationale. I stated that it's misplaced, especially if not covered lower in the guideline. Why should it be in the introduction if it's covered lower in the guideline? And either way, it doesn't fit where you originally placed it or where you moved it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Flyer22 Frozen, you're simply repeating what you stated in the beginning (that's it's misplaced, especially if not covered lower), without providing a clear explanation why you think so. I'll ask for a third opinion as I consider this discussion to have come to a standstill. --TadejM ^{my talk} 11:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The above reasoning by me is my rationale. And I feel that I've been clear. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think it should be placed back where it was, since it makes the paragraph flow less well. Plus, ironically,
  WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. It could be put somewhere lower, though. Crossroads ^-talk-
  06:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)