| Revision as of 17:15, 11 August 2009 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →Problem← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:08, 11 August 2009 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →ProblemNext edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| ::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. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 17:15, 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. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 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." <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 19:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:08, 11 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)