| Revision as of 07:09, 12 August 2009 editWhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers121,698 edits →Clarifying the issues: c← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:00, 12 August 2009 edit undoPhilcha (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers24,625 edits →Problem: SlimVirgin, could you please provide examplesNext edit → | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
| :::...that's all ] (]) 02:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | :::...that's all ] (]) 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, ] 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. ] (]) 07:09, 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, ] 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. ] (]) 07:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| I sympathise with ]'s "it needs to be spelled out that guidelines aren't mandatory", because ] reads as if it generally makes guidelines mandatory, with no room for ], and is interpreted that way - to the extent that ] minutiae dominate many FA reviews. On the other hand I share 's concern that "editors are always trying to add info to the lead which is disproportionate relative to reliable sources" and ]'s about "soapboxing" - or, to put it more bluntly, POV-pushing and ]. ], 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 ]. --] (]) 08:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:00, 12 August 2009
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Lead section page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 45 days  |
 | Manual of Style   | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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
Sub-article template
The guideline mentions creating a link from a sub-article to the parent: the example given was "This is a sub-article to Muhammad before Medina." Is there not a template for this? --Jameboy (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- {{main}} works; if you think we need a new one for this specific wording then {{child}} hasn't been taken yet. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we really want to control our readers?
The article says, in the introductory text section, The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. That bold faced section needs to come out. Different people have different purposes for coming to Misplaced Pages. Some 13-year old kid might have just heard about Hirohito in class, been confused by the reference, and simply needs to know that he was the emperor of Japan during WWII. Now I personally would like him to read more and learn more, but it is not my job to write the article with that end in mind, and it's both silly and arrogant for me to think like that. Not a big deal, really, but I'm going to remove it. Unschool 02:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't remove it. It simply means that leads should be well-written and interesting, so that readers might want to read more about the topic, rather than getting bored after the first sentence. That is obviously true. We do want to control our readers in that sense, yes! :) SlimVirgin 02:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but the words in the text do not match the meaning you ascribe to them. Look, elsewhere in the guideline is this sentence: Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. The difference between the "make readers" version and the "consideration should be given" version is subtle—perhaps invisible to some—but I greatly prefer the latter language, and have no intention of removing it. I just don't think our guideline should include verbiage that indicates that we aim to manipulate. Unschool 03:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're reading too much into the word "make." We want leads to be well-written, and to "make" people want to read more because their interest is piqued, rather than having leads of one sentence that don't really say anything. But that's not manipulation, except in the most banal of senses. We're not causing readers to be injected with heroin the minute they read our leads, making them read on for more. SlimVirgin 03:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suppose I could be reading too much into it. But if it was better worded, as it is elsewhere in the guideline, then the problem ceases to exist. I'll leave it alone, since it seems to be more important to you than it is to me, but really, it wouldn't hurt to change the wording. G'day! Unschool 03:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're reading too much into the word "make." We want leads to be well-written, and to "make" people want to read more because their interest is piqued, rather than having leads of one sentence that don't really say anything. But that's not manipulation, except in the most banal of senses. We're not causing readers to be injected with heroin the minute they read our leads, making them read on for more. SlimVirgin 03:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Peacock terms in the lead
I've noticed that peacock terms are often found in lead sections, and the style guideline Misplaced Pages: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: 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 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 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 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 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 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'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 19:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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 19:08, 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 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)
- 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)
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 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- "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)
- I've always thought that:
- 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 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 '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)