Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shadowjams (talk | contribs) at 05:36, 30 May 2013 (→Some context on the policy we're talking about). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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

• WT:LEAD

Manual of Style

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

Propose change to lead

I would like to change the following sentence in the lead:

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

to

Weight given to material in the lead should accord with its importance to the topic, roughly reflecting weight in the article itself.

I would like to prevent situations where the lead and the article do not concur with each other about what is important, and also prevent repeated arguments about 'weight in reliable sources' in the context of both the lead and in the article itself. In my opinion, arguments about weight belong in discussions about what should be in the body of the article. The lead should only be edited so as to bring it into harmony with what is the body of the article. I feel that this already reflects best practice on Misplaced Pages, where editors just ask when deciding about changes to the lead, 'does the new lead better summarise the body of the article?' Thoughts? Objections?LK (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like a sensible proposal, LK, but I am curious to hear the comments and input of others on point. Small ripples in a key MOS provision such as this can create large, unanticipated waves. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Agree that would be sensible in principle, but it does come up against the rather large practical problem surely that many, if not most WP articles, are an incoherent, unbalanced mess. This change would simply give licence to people to extend any such failings to the lead, either by blocking necessary improvements to it that didn't also make commensurate improvements to the body or by insisting on hacking up any relatively decent one that nonetheless found itself at the head of a shoddy wider article. I'm sure I'm not alone in rarely reading or editing beyond the lead, and I think we'd be disadvantaging both readers and editors who happen to have that focus. As a wider point, I think a better way to build decent encyclopedia entries (and, realistically, it's the way most pages here develop from when they are first created) is to start with the broad overview and then pick out the key details from that for expansion and elaboration, rather than basing a purported broad overview on the fairly arbitrary and randomly selected pieces of detail we happen to have at any one time. N-HH talk/edits 12:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• I suspect that the purpose of this statement is to indicate that "its importance to the topic" is defined by "reliable, published sources" rather than by editors' personal interests. Both the lead and the article body should "roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources". In the case of an under-developed article, there's no good reason to have a lopsided lead to match a lopsided article. The lead should reflect the weight that should be present in the article, which often is not the weight that we actually have at the moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Placement of deletion templates

The helpful list of elements of the lead includes "Maintenance templates" (second, after Disambiguation links) but does not explicitly mention Deletion templates - Speedy, PROD, AfD. Is there any guideline as to whether these should be above, or below, maintenance templates such as {{unreferenced}}? They seem to be placed fairly randomly above or below, at present. The text of WP:PROD says "Add the {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} to the top of the main article page", which is vague. At present Yobot is moving maintenance tags to be above PROD, but I've asked Magliodatis and there seems no guideline. My own feeling is that deletion templates should probably be placed above other maintenance templates (though after disambiguation hatnotes). Any thoughts, or any links to policy or guidelines? PamD 08:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the matter. I also would like that we reach a consensus on this. I think the best choice is hatnotes, deletion templates, maintenance templates as you said. I think infoboxes should follow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hearing no objections during the last two weeks, I think we could consider that proposal to be approved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Boldfacing minor variations of article titles

This guideline says If the article's exact title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear. This seems overly strict to me — I agree that the example given of something not to do is indeed, something not to do, but there are many exceptions:

• An article title with a disambiguator should not generally have that disambiguator included in the text of the lead sentence; nevertheless the rest of the title should be boldfaced.
• An article about a city should probably have a lead sentence like "X is a city in Y" and an article title like "X, Y", but should still boldface X.
• An article about a person should be titled with the most commonly used variant of the person's name, but the lead should use the full name in boldface (e.g. Woodrow Wilson starts with Thomas Woodrow Wilson)
• Although articles generally have singular subjects, it may be more convenient for the lead sentence to use the plural form, e.g. Wakefield power station is actually about two power stations, and the lead uses Wakefield power stations. (Possibly this is a bad example and the article should be retitled but I believe that singular/plural issues should not in general block boldfacing.)
• In some cases for technical reasons it may not be possible to assign an article the title that it should have; nevertheless, if that title appears in the first sentence, it should be boldfaced. (For instance, suppose we had an article about a company whose name began with the string "User:".)

Would it be possible to find a less restrictive wording that allows these cases to continue, so that we don't someday have people inappropriately removing the boldfacing from many of our articles? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. The spirit of this guideline is that we should only boldface "proper" titles as opposed to "common" titles, but that's a different distinction from "proper" and "common" nouns. It's hard to put a finger on the actual terminology to use. —Designate (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the naming and redirect policies make reference (in examples) to bolding of non-exact titles, and a lot, if not most, celebrity/famous person articles with longer names do so. Just look at Liberace or Madonna or Sting (musician). I think BOLDSYN generally covers most of those scenarios though, which is of course the next section. I would support fixing that wording since it is directly contradictory with the very next section. Shadowjams (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"Lazy" Links should be Minimized in the lead.

Lazy links (lazy in-line contextual links or "lazy hyperlinks") are cases where links are used exclusively to define uncommon terms within very important sentences when simply adding a few words within or near the sentence would give enough clue that the reader is not forced to click on a link to understand the main article/topic/definition.
They are "lazy" when the writer uses links to replace clear writing, rather than as an optional aid to clarity.

Minimizing lazy links is particularly important in the lead to keep it "stand alone,"—to keep it a quick definition.

The main danger of not minimizing lazy contextual links in our leads is readers being forced to skip from lead to lead to lead in virtual perpetuity, for almost any topic. (This happens to me all the time!) But this is particularly true in technical, often jargon-ridden articles or in topics where a reader is unusually ignorant. A Wiki-wide tendency towards lazy linking in the lead is diminishing its usability and conceptual continuity. In fact, I see this as Misplaced Pages's greatest weakness.

(And a weakness of lazy links outside of the lead is that often a few words in context is more precise than a link to an entire article written outside of that context.)

I think this is important enough that warning against lazy links, and suggesting we minimize locally unexplained terms deserves to be in the Lead_section's lead. Thoughts?
--69.110.90.125 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

So consider a subject like Inferior gemellus muscle. How would you write a proper introduction for that subject, so that nobody had to click through to find out what any of the technical terms meant? I don't think that I could do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who is by now quite used to seeing systematically removing 'Lazy links' of common terms in the lead (and indeed elsewhere within articles), I can quite sympathise with the opinion expressed by the OP. Links used for glossing ought to be used with great restraint. Uncommon terms, as exemplified above, might be the exception. -- Ohconfucius  08:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• I frequently edit technical mathematics articles. In this area, although some terms should be glossed, it is *necessary* to provide links for context rather than glossing everything, because the tree of definitions you would need to expand goes extremely deep. So I am wary of this proposal, that seems to be suited for some kinds of Misplaced Pages articles and not others. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! (I don't know what "glossed" means.) I don't systematically remove 'Lazy links,' but I do often repair them. ...meaning I reluctantly follow the link in the unclear sentence, then come back and add the few words that clear writing demands. (Typically the most wasted time is in the learning, not the actual repair—BY FAR!)
OK, I see I was not clear in my Original Post. So I edited the top paragraph. At the sacrifice of clear sentences I combined two for better technical precision in my above definition of lazy links. I hope it's still readable. Does the definition still need clarification?

WhatamIdoing, I think your lead to the Inferior gemellus muscle is fine. I don't think those links meet either of the two "They are "lazy" when..." conditions given above, for the reasons you suggest. (Plus you have pictures! Grin.) Again I stress, we are NOT talking "hard and fast rule," here!

I also agree with every word David Eppstein said. We do need care here. I'd only clarify that I'm not against all links at all, only lazy links, in the lead section, as better defined above: three conditions.
I agree that a few articles don't fit my suggestion well. This is why I never suggested a strict prohibition on undefined terms in the lead, but rather; their discouragement, a posture,....a general minimizing, not an elimination. Indeed it is true that in some few cases a robotic repair of all or most undefined terms could do the opposite, it could clutter and un-clarify. Sometimes naked links are best, and I didn't intend to suggest that all naked links are lazy links.

However, if we suggest suggesting an attitude rather than a hard rule, I think it in no way subtracts from the importance of this issue. Nor would the difficulty and complexity of communicating this concept. ...Because this is a true weakness in Misplaced Pages's efficient conveyance of information! Are we all in agreement now? Dread. I find this almost overwhelming. Ideas?
--69.110.90.125 (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

You can read about Glossing at the article on the subject.

If you think that fasciculi and tuberosities and medial surfaces of trochanters are everyday words that readers will understand without needing to read another article, then I'm not sure what your problem is. Can you give an example? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a problem!? An example of a lazy hypertext is: "Joe J. Blow denied it." Repaired: "Joe J. Blow, Norway's king, denied it." Also I've left dozens of Edit summeries saying: repaired "lazy hypertext", —but my Google's not finding them, can yours? Also, I suggest re-reading what I've written, you've seemingly misunderstood or forgotten many sentences. I'd repost, but my redundancy meter is already nearly pegged. But let me suggest a careful, slow, intuitive reread of the very first sentence of the Original Post. (Substitute "gist," "idea," "theme," or "feeling" for "clue" if you like.) Your complaint seems off topic.
--69.110.90.125 (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Here's more examples: I was exploring the article: Hollow-point bullet. There is a lazy link for the unknown word; "nominalizing", quote:

"The term is shortened by nominalizing the unit adjective hollow-point. Logically, the hyphen should remain when writing the nominalized form. However, this distinction is lost on most of the population, and if we were to style the nominalized form thus in this article, I suspect that we would constantly be upbraided by users telling us that the "right" way to style the nominalized form is...."

Keep in mind, (this part is critical!) in this case the topic was hollow-point bullets. So, clicking on the link nominalizing, I was hoping for a quick definition, or at least a clue, just enough to grasp the original theme or intent. As is typical on Misplaced Pages, my goal was NOT an education on nominalizing. Just: "What is this guy talking about!?" A clue. Instead, I found another lead full of lazy links for more linguistic jargon. I gave up there. Wiki failed me. What caused that failure? My expectation that following more links would not illuminate, but dig a deeper hole into my day...on an OFF TOPIC subject. I now dread links. They have become rabbit holes, unwanted adventures too often ending in futility and wasted time. The author(s) had unconsciously used a link as a crutch, as an excuse to use sloppy, lazy, unclear writing (in this case; inappropriate jargon). So Misplaced Pages faces two serious problems or faults here: dreaded links and unclear/sloppy writing. ...but problems with a potential fix.

In contrast, an example where I think a naked link does NOT need expanding is the "color space" in the CIE 1931 color space article's lead, —for several reasons: They include: 1) "CIE 1931 color space" is a subset of "color space," therefore an understanding of "color space," is either assumed, or required, a few words would not help that. And 2) "CIE 1931 color space," unlike "color space," is technical enough that the general reader is unlikely to encounter it. Finally, 3) "color space" is not off-topic to "CIE 1931 color space." addendum: And last, perhaps my major reason: 4) I simply could not think of a few words or a sentence that would have improved clarity and readability.

But all this is subjective, debatable. Again, I'm suggesting an attitude or value, not a rule. The overriding goal is aiding in clear, elegant, and efficient communication, enabling better user-experiences. I can think of nothing as easy to do, with such a large payoff.
--69.110.90.125 (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

So in the section: Introductory text, Provide an accessible overview, we find this sentence: "Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined."
That could be what I'm saying! Yes...no? What are example(s) of "placed in context," and "briefly defined?"
--69.110.90.125 (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I think that this is a problem everywhere, not just in the introduction. What confused me is that you seemed to accept "The gemelli are two small muscular fasciculi", when almost nobody knows what a fasciculus is, and the statement that it "arises from the upper part of the tuberosity of the ischium," when almost nobody knows what either a tuberosity is or where the ischium is. If we're going to explain who Joe is (and IMO we normally should), then why shouldn't we explain these rare technical terms?

Anyway, yes, pages should be well-written (e.g., terms placed in context, which is what you want), but this problem extends well beyond the introduction, and so should be addressed elsewhere (on a page that applies to everything, not just to the first few paragraphs). Also, you might like to enable WP:POPUPS, which I think will let you read the beginning of linked articles without actually having to click through. 19:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You ask: "If we're going to explain who Joe is (and IMO we normally should), then why shouldn't we explain these rare technical terms?"
The short answer is; because sometimes adding a few words is not better than following a link. I could be more specific if you were: —So what about my above listed (1-4) reasons and adjoining concept do you find unclear? Again, I wonder if you are seeking a bifurcated, True-False RULE for editors to apply, where again and again and again and again and ....hello? I keep saying it's NOT a rule, it should be a value or guideline. Specifically to your example, my examples "2)" and "4)" apply to how I would edit it. Me. But YOU may, in light of your own education, values, and a different article context have another set of reasons. Creating a list of all possible reasons would be futile and silly. Put another way, I NEVER SAID WE "shouldn't explain these rare technical terms!" You can if you want. The overriding value to apply is: will a few added words or a sentence improve clarity, speed, and readability over following the link. In the Joe-example, 3 words gave a meaningless declaration; logical existence...thus a "clue" or hint to the uninformed into what is being said. Again, often the reader is only seeking a quick, foggy concept to apply to a side-argument in his main topic of interest.

You say: "should be addressed elsewhere (on a page that applies to everything, not just to the first few paragraphs)." Yes, and I should be a millionaire. If others want to lead on that, I'll certainly support it! I also think my arguments why it's far more important in the lead are strong, valid and true. But look how much trouble I've had explaining that! Perhaps your suggestion is ideal and mine is only good. But let's not let wanting the ideal, ruin the good. ...Or, learn arithmetic before algebra.
--69.110.90.230 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Proposal: move most translations and transliterations from lead sentence to footnote

Note: This thread is about the MoS sections #Alternative names and #Foreign language

I want to propose rewriting the "Alternative names" section to reduce clutter in the lead. Only major names used commonly by English-language sources should appear in the first sentence. Any transliterations and translations should appear in a footnote. Any etymologies sections should appear in the body of the article or in a footnote.

I suggest the section "Foreign language" be removed, as the only purpose of this section is to say "Don't put etymologies in boldface"—but etymologies shouldn't appear in the first sentence anyway. Otherwise it just distracts from "Alternative names" which is the relevant guideline. Read my proposal over and let me know what you think. —Designate (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree only when there are so many it takes up a full line. Otherwise, no. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  What does "full line" mean? Screen sizes vary widely. Ironholds (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  Approximately 75 – 150 characters or so. My point is there's a difference between Christopher Columbus and the Middle East. – Ypnypn (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Personally I strongly support this proposal. Ironholds (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• The emphasis on English-language sources in this makes me very uncomfortable. We don't need to have any English-language sources to have an article here. This is an encyclopedia of everything, not an encyclopedia of America, England, and the former British colonies. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a good point, thank you. I've edited the proposal to tone down the focus on English-language sources and present it as a consideration rather than a necessity. —Designate (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - when a subject's name is not English, it makes good sense (to me) to include their native name in the lead. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • In the first sentence, though? Is that maximally useful to readers who are looking for an overview of a subject? —Designate (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure where all you would put it besides in parentheses after the English name. Is someone's birthdate really the single most important thing about them? Of course not, but convention is to put it in parenthesis immediately after their name too. The current guideline encourages footnoting when not doing so causes clutter. That is perfectly good advice. However, your proposal is basically to mandate such names are always be footnoted. As a matter of personal preference (there is no obviously right answer), I like having the non-English names at the top. Enwiki is used by many people who's native language is not English. To me, including the native name of non-English subjects at the top makes the encyclopedia more friendly to our global audience. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• I support any proposal that serves to trim the first sentence of excess baggage, with the goal of making it actually readable. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Alternative names: To clarify the examples used above, it would be good (for us discussion participants) to have better before&after comparisons of what repercussions this might have.
  Eg. the suggested Middle East edit has already been entered (difflink, see before and after). I agree the "before" is problematic, but I'm not sure if this is the best solution.
  Eg.2. the Ban Ki-moon article currently looks like that, in contrast to the only English that is in the collapsed/proposed example above.
  Based on those 2 examples, I would oppose the proposal as currently written, and I oppose any proposal that completely removes all non-English titles from the lead. It is beneficial to remind ourselves (and any readers) that English is not the primary/original language used to describe everything. "Ban Ki-moon" is not the name given to that person by his parents at birth, and we would be making a harmful decision if we didn't include that, right up front. I do completely agree that it's an issue that needs further thought and discussion. –Quiddity (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Etymologies: This should really be a separate thread. There has been much past discussion (here and elsewhere). Etymologies shouldn't overwhelm a lead section, but they do often warrant a mention. They should not ever be banned or forbidden from the lead. Gentle discouragement of excessively long etymologies, in the lead, would be fine. There's also a vast difference between "lead section" and "lead sentence", and we must be careful to keep them separate in discussion and in style/guidelines. –Quiddity (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Limited conditional support per Ypnypn. As Quiddity points out, English is not the primary language used to describe everything or even most things. More broadly, the vast majority of articles on Misplaced Pages are far more akin to Kim Seong-Min (footballer) than Christopher Columbus, in terms of both the language of the sources which describe them and the language capabilities & interests of the people who are most likely to read them, and it's unlikely that a guideline designed to address problems on a few very-high-profile articles is going to produce appropriate results for all those other articles.

On the other hand, I can see the need for some encouragement for editors to move extremely lengthy non-English name information to footnotes/infoboxen, particularly when for reasons of NPOV editors would otherwise feel the need to include multiple languages, orthographies, and/or transcription systems. A guideline which encouraged the use of footnotes/infoboxen in those particular cases would have the advantage of describing and building on existing practice & consensus rather than trying to prescribe new practice; for example, Korea-related articles deal with this problem all the time, and WP:KOREA's usual advice is to put just hangul or no Korean at all in the lede sentence, while everything else goes to {{Infobox Korean name}}. quant18 (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I dislike complicated, technical discussions of etymology even near the top of an article. I think these are off-putting to the general reader, and they occur often in Greek mythology articles right after the intro, where they create undue weight (that is, in the intro or as the first sentence, an etymology can imply that this is more important in understanding something than it may in fact be). But as Quiddity notes above, this is perhaps a separate discussion, and with some topics an etymology is both basic to understanding and quite helpful. So in general I don't think the guideline needs to be rigid. I'm extremely wary of banning transliteration from the beginning. Some languages, such as Chinese and Arabic, have such varied transliterations that I'm often not sure I'm in the right place, unless I see all the forms laid out. I find an explanation of the name most helpful in languages I don't read at all—which seems to be the opposite of the proposer's impression that alternate names or transliterations are merely confusing. An explanation of naming convention in the language (example) can immediately clear up confusion for the uninitiated. For bilingual readers, alternative names and transliterations may be vital. In classical studies, the transliteration of ancient Greek can vary; some translations, even those used in high schools, may not use the "most common" or traditional latinization (Achilles for Akhilleus). I do agree wholeheartedly with the goal of reducing clutter in the intro, as represented by "Middle East" (note 3) above: this is a perfect example of a general term that doesn't need all this stuff at the top. The list of names seems to represent mere translations of "Middle East", not actual alternative names or varied transliterations of a source-language. "Middle East" is a conventional geographical designation in English from the Western perspective in the first place, not a name brought into English. So this is quite different from the nomenclature given, for example, at the beginning of Turkey. Note 1 is an example of something I wouldn't want to see moved to a note, and expect that alternative anglicizations might be available and useful. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This one-size-fits-all piece, in my judgment, is inattentive to the function of the lead sentence, which is to present, in a single sentence, the absolute core of what an English-language reader should be told about a subject. Perhaps for many or most subjects, this would not include transliterations or foreign-language terms. But when we get into articles on technical subjects in philology and other cultures, such terms often do have the single-sentence level of notability. I suppose that "Only major names used commonly by English-language sources" could be taken to mean, "As long as expert secondary and tertiary sources in English frequently have reason to mention these terms in transliteration or in their original languages, of course that counts as 'used commonly by English-language sources,' so don't dream of removing anything unless you're sure that's not the case." However, unless such instructions are clearly written, I believe the change would be misunderstood and lead to edits that harm the quality of our encyclopedic information in areas such as Greek antiquity (where I have often edited). If clarification along the lines I suggest were adopted, I'd certainly switch from opposition to support. Wareh (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. DECRUFT! Please, please, please. The very start of an article is the most high impact part. When I write a lead I think about that sentence very carefully. Then, to waste attention with a parenthetical? What a waste. And I suspect the people going in for this thing think it "looks intelligent". But what is really smart is to convey as much info as smoothly as possible. Some of these openings with Arabic, Chinese, even Egyptian hieroglyphics are just...silly. And crufty.

If the etymology is really so important have some discussion of it in article in a para or two. But I suspect the same gnomes running around pushing this cruft...are not the sort to write thoughtful discussion of word evolution and translation. And there are very few topics where the etymology would be important enough to even make it into the lead at all, let alone front of first sentence.

TCO (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Restating the subject's name in multiple languages and scripts, with multiple phonetic pronunciations, even before the statement of the subject's birth date does a great disservice to the overwhelming majority of our readers. For those few readers in need of the multiple restatements of the subject's name, they can go to a linked footnote or explanatory note to find the additional detailed information they require. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Moving most of them e.g. to a separate section right after the lead (just like the Etymology section at many articles) would be be OK; demoting them to a footnote, no, they're imo too important... Put in another way I'm with Wareh, Quiddity or Cynwolfe... Thanatos|talk 07:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ignoring the etymology issue (as it seems completely separate to me), I'm not convinced that this is enough of an issue to warrant the proposed change. Yes, there are some articles where too much space is devoted to their name and it can be problematic. But that issue is already covered in the existing language ("Consider footnoting foreign-language and archaic names if they would otherwise clutter the opening sentence.") and the single non-English name used in the vast majority of articles is not particularly distracting, IMHO. Cckerberos (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Question. Would the proposer consider separating the issue of etymology and transliteration? With transliteration, I see the issue as distinguishing between English terminology (the Middle East example above, which might be considered cruft) and words brought into English, where the relation between the English name and the original needs to be clear from the outset. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, largely per Wareh's reasoning; I also agree with Cckerberos that the clutter advisory is sufficient material to be invoked when editors have concerns about a lead and need to discuss the best way forward, which is how this issue should be dealt with, not via a leveling MoS rule that eliminates the discussion and doesn't take into account the norms of the many disciplines which are covered in our multiform encyclopedia. (But yes, etymology will generally only have a place in the first sentence or lead when the topic at hand involves etymology as a primary concern.)  davidiad { t } 23:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wareh and Cynwolfe. We don't need to shoehorn every introductory sentence into the same slipper. Technical information such as a transliteration or etymology can be appropriate and helpful, as long as it's not too long or involved. Then, and only then, does it need to be partitioned off into a separate section. But just what is appropriate and what needs to be pared down, partitioned, or moved, has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. That's what editors are for! P Aculeius (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. The proposed wording does allow for a case-by-case determination (hence "by consensus", "may include"). But it's designed to shift the prejudice away from automatically putting the transliterations in the first sentence, which is what the current wording implies. The current wording implies that we need a reason to exclude the information, but I think it's the opposite: editors should need a reason to include this information in the middle of the first sentence. Even one extra name makes the sentence less clear.

  For those who like the current wording, can you explain why it's generally useful to the majority of our readers to include the transliteration of a name before saying who a person is? Do you disagree that the fraction of users who need that information ahead of all other information is a very small minority? —Designate (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment we don't even use the English-language name for most European articles, we use the local non-English Latin-derived-alphabetic name of the local alphabet. When we have evidence of the common English language name, it isn't used, instead we use the local name. If you've looked at Requested Moves over the last year, articles have moved from the name found in English language sources to names found in native language sources. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support. The problem is endemic in Chinese articles, with some editors filling up templates to include all the various writing and phoneticisation systems. And although MOS:CHINESE stipulates on ejecting to infoboxes or footnotes, the practice seems engrained. Just have a look at the lead section of Mao Zedong. It was 'clean' six months earlier, but comes back like wild grass. For me, the way Sanskrit, Thai or Arabic render on page (sometimes it gets replaced by truly odd characters taking up several lines) and affect other elements of the lead is what creates the biggest headache for me. One of the most interesting cases was dealt with like this, condensed into 'Note 3'. The sooner this practice can be banished, the better. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 09:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to me that this is already covered in the MOS Clutter section. Maybe I don't understand how this proposal is different from what is already listed there. Rystheguy (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

News style

I added some links to the overview section today. Bbb23 has reverted it on the grounds that I did not obtain written permission in advance, even though the overall meaning was not changed, the edits responded directly to the previous edit summary left by a very inexperienced editor, and WP:POLICY requires no advance discussion. Here is the explanation:

The previous editor removed a longstanding link to the article on news style because it "implied condonation while the lead of this article explicitly condemns its use." This indicates that what we've provided is not communicating our intentions well.

There are some important elements from news style that we want editors to use. They include:

• Inverted pyramid: Most important information comes first.
• Never burying the lead: See "most important information comes first".
• No teasers: The article on that subject is at cold open, which I linked.

I also rephrased a sentence to eliminate the potential confusion over whether leads are supposed to be WP:ACCESSible (to disabled people) or accessible in the sense of comprehensible (to everyone), and added the word definitions as the most relevant case of an overly specific description that ought to be avoided in the lead.

There are, of course, some journalistic styles that we don't want, namely extremely short paragraphs (often just one sentence), extremely short introductions (often just one sentence), and catchy headlines, but it is incorrect to say that we reject news style completely. In fact, we want every introduction to be written in a traditional summary news style. (We do reject what you might call "magazine style", with teasers and personal anecdotes and other non-encyclopedic and non-news styles.)

So that's the explanation, and if anyone has any actual substantive objections, I'd like to hear them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi WAID, we don't normally use news style (inverted pyramid, and so on), as the first paragraph says. Some editors do prefer it, and it does sometimes make sense, but in general WP leads are stand-alone summaries of the article, rather than ledes. SlimVirgin 16:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Inverted pyramid" means that you put important and basic information first, and that you make it possible for the article to make sense to a person who stops reading after the lead. That is exactly what we do here. Or, at least, I've never seen you write an article with unimportant trivia preceding basic facts, or whose lead did not "stand alone as a concise overview", exactly like the inverted pyramid and standard news requires.

When we talked about "news style" a while ago, we had people asserting that "news style" was a code word for using teasers, which—if you go read that article, or any reputable newspaper (rather than tabloids or magazines)—it most certainly does not. We routinely do proper journalistic leads in the lead, exactly like that footnote says: an immediate summary of the most important facts presented in the first paragraph or so. That's what we want and that's what news style requires. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing?

I see some Intro sections that have errors (bias, inflammatory statements, inaccuracies, unsupported assertions, etc.) but I see no way to edit this one section of the article. How can I do this? If you need to have some kind of privileges to do so, this should be mentioned in this articles. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are logged-in, you can set one of the user preferences "Add an link for the lead section of a page". Otherwise, here's how to do it in a Windows-based browser: there are at least two ways.

• When viewing (not editing) a page, go to the URL address bar of your browser, and immediately after the existing URL, add ?action=edit&section=0 and press ↵ Enter
• Find the "" link for any section; right-click on that and select "Copy link", "Copy link location", or "Copy shortcut" (it varies between browsers). Then paste that link into the URL address bar of your browser, but before pressing ↵ Enter, alter the last part of the URL from e.g. &section=1 to &section=0 and then press ↵ Enter. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Plural

should the plural be in the first sentence if there is only one plural, and it is obscure? Regardless of whether you should or not, that information should be on this page. Thanks. 24.246.101.50 (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Late bolding

Is it appropriate to bold a repetition of the title when it appears (somewhat by chance) later on in the opening paragraph, as here? Victor Yus (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No. On English plural, the opening sentence should say what the English plural is, and there "English plural" should appear in bold. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that's just pedantic and strange. —Designate (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS:INTRO and contentious labels

I would like to seek clarification over the use of contentious labels such as "controversial" in the lead section of an article. According to MOS:INTRO:

"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning")."

Though the section on providing an accessible overview specifically advises against the use of peacock terms, would it be reasonable to assume that, at the same time contentious labels are advised against as well? I understand that Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines tend to be more descriptive than prescriptive, however since I am currently involved in a dispute on a biographical article, I thought it best to seek opinion of the regular contributors to this page. (User:SlimVirgin, User:Stevertigo, User:CBM, User:WhatamIdoing, User:SMcCandlish) — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for initiating this discussion, Sir Nick. I would like to add that there are several Featured Articles and Good Articles (examples Yasser Arafat, Neville Chamberlain, George W. Bush) that currently contain such statements in the lede. This particular point of contention arose as part of discussions on Narendra Modi. Aurorion (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• And there are several others that only describe the controversies without labelling the subject of the article or their actions as "controversial". My position is summarized here – This discussion is generally about the MoS guide rather than any specific dispute. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Note: It was my suggestion that a statement along the lines of "Modi is a controversial figure in India" be added to the article lead.) According to WP:LEAD, the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. If "controversial" is a widely applied label, is one of the reasons why a topic is notable and if it is an important defining characteristic well backed up sources, we certainly should include it. The applicable tests are whether it is noteworthy and whether it is well supported by sources. --regentspark (comment) 16:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP:LEAD further states: "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves." (emphasis mine)

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, the test for that (your emphasized part) is also straightforward. If sources describe an entity in a certain way, we can assume it is clinically written. If academic peer-reviewed ones do so, we can safely assume it is clinically written. --regentspark (comment) 12:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Since it's not a secret that Narendra Modi is the subject here, see this discussion before coming to any conclusion. There is more than what meets the eye here. Mr T 17:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

@Uninvolved editors: Should it be concluded that "controversial" is al right for use, kindly also clarify whether that sentence should give readers enough information to identify what the controversy is about (cf. WP:LABEL). Mr T 12:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDTITLE and its application to specific situations

I've found myself in a dispute with User:Shadowjams and User:My76Strat over the interpretation and application of MOS:BOLDTITLE (and MOS:INTRO in general), and would appreciate further input on this policy. I took this to WP:DR/N, but they referred us back here.

I believe bolding and inclusion of a descriptive title in an article's lead should not be done in many cases per BOLDTITLE and WP:BEGIN, and that the intro sentence should provide a concise non-redundant summary, while the other two editors believe in more widespread use of bold titles as shown below. Further, I agree with the general advice in the WP:SBE essay, including not giving undue weight to unofficial descriptive titles.

One of the editors has also stated that WP:REDUNDANCY only applies if the entire title is repeated (e.g. "The Boston Marathon bombings were Boston Marathon bombings"), not if only individual words are repeated out of order, but I don't believe that's what the policy says at all for descriptive titles (WP:BEGIN footnote 7 helps clarify this with the example there.) Input on that particular guideline would be appreciated as well.

Not all of these examples may be viable to change, but primarily, I'm looking for guidance on whether or not the titles I have suggested do comply with MOS:INTRO. (Regardless of whether they end up being changed.) I think the MOS examples may need improvement to prevent this type of contention, and hope to provide input on doing so as this discussion hopefully progresses.

Several specific examples that we disagree on:

1. From Boston Marathon bombings (also discussed at length on that talk page):

• "During the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, two pressure cooker bombs exploded ..." (current version, which I prefer and has been stable on the page for weeks)
• "The 2013 Boston Marathon bombings were a series of bombings that occured during the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013." (version proposed by Shadowjams)

I believe the "Mississippi River" example in MOS:BOLDTITLE clearly shows that this wording is disallowed, as it is nearly identical to the example situation, creating an unnecessary WP:REDUNDANCY. The article title is descriptive and per WP:BEGIN is not required, and in fact should not appear at all since it would prevent the terms "Boston Marathon" and "bombings" from being properly explained in context without that redundancy.

• "The first explosion of the Boston Marathon bombings occurred on April 15, 2013, at 2:49 p.m. EDT (18:49 UTC), 13 seconds later, the second explosion was visible ..." (alternate version proposed by My76Strat after a discussion about removing redundancy)

My objection: "What was the attack? How many bombs were there? (Is the article even about a bombing event, or about the explosions that occurred?) The description of what the attack was (two bombs exploding) is split into two parts and less descriptive. Your suggestion does not tell the reader whether the attack happened during the marathon, or if it was a related attack that affected the marathon, or if there were additional explosions." This version severely distorts the wording simply to bold the title, contrary to what the MOS says.

2. From 2011 Joplin tornado:

• "A catastrophic EF5 multiple-vortex tornado struck Joplin, Missouri, in the late afternoon of Sunday, May 22, 2011." (my version)
• "The 2011 Joplin tornado was a catastrophic EF5 multiple-vortex tornado that struck Joplin, Missouri in the late afternoon of Sunday, May 22, 2011." (original version, reverted to by Shadowjams)

My change here removed the redundant information from the beginning of the sentence. I believe the "Mississippi River" example is a good guide here as well; this is again a descriptive title, and "2011", "Joplin", and "tornado" are all redundant to the rest of the sentence.

3. From 2013 Moore tornado:

• "On the afternoon of May 20, 2013, a deadly EF5 tornado impacted Moore, Oklahoma ..." (my preferred format, details may be dated)
• "The 2013 Moore tornado was a deadly tornado that occurred on the afternoon of May 20, 2013. The EF5 tornado, with peak winds estimated at 210 miles per hour (340 km/h), impacted Moore, Oklahoma ..." (current version supported by Shadowjams and My76Strat, details may be dated)

This is a descriptive title, and moves the wikilink for Moore, Oklahoma, further down, making the sentence less informative. If that wikilink is reintroduced to the first sentence, it would create an additional redundancy. "2013" and "tornado" are also redundant.

4. From List of English monarchs:

• "The monarchy of the Kingdom of England began with Æthelstan and ended with Anne ..." (my version)
• "This list of English monarchs begins with Æthelstan and ends with Anne ..." (original version, reverted to by Shadowjams)

My change was to allow more information to be wikilinked. Per WP:BEGIN: "if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as 'This is a list of X' or "This list of Xs...'".

5. From 1985 Nepal bombings:

• "A series of coordinated bomb blasts occurred on June 20, 1985, in Kathmandu and other cities in Nepal." (my version)
• "A series of coordinated bomb blasts occurred on June 20, 1985 in Kathmandu and other cities in Nepal." (original version, reverted to by Shadowjams)

The bolded text is not the title, nor is it an alternative title, it just paraphrases parts of it (the "Beatles" example in BOLDTITLE says not to bold related text.) I do not see any rationale for bolding in this case.

6. From May 15–17, 2013 tornado outbreak:

• "From May 15–17, 2013, a small, but intense and deadly, tornado outbreak produced several damaging tornadoes ..." (my version)
• "The May 15–17, 2013 tornado outbreak was a small, but intense and deadly tornado outbreak that produced several damaging tornadoes ..." (original version, reverted to by Shadowjams)

I am less clear on what the policy says to do here. I changed it since "tornado outbreak" is a WP:REDUNDANCY, and it is a descriptive title and thus is not required to be in the text. "Tornado outbreak" needs to be wikilinked, so it cannot simply be removed from the original version.

7. From Black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn:

• "A little black dress designed by Hubert de Givenchy was worn by Audrey Hepburn ..." (my version)
• "The black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn refers to the little black dress that was designed by Hubert de Givenchy and worn by Audrey Hepburn ..." (original version, reverted to by Shadowjams with the comment "this is the most specific lead i've ever seen... your mosbold objection is absurd")

This is a purely descriptive title, yet the text suggests it is an official term being used to refer to that item. I googled "black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn" before changing this, and it is not a widely used name of any sort, so it does not seem to belong per WP:REDUNDANCY and the information presented in the "Mississippi River" example yet again.

Additional point I made in the DR/N discussion: "The titles in question are descriptive titles that we editors have assigned to these articles. The media may commonly use their own versions, e.g. "Boston Marathon bombing", "Boston Marathon bombings", or "Boston Marathon attacks". There isn't a single name in use for this specific event; the various names are simply descriptions just as we use at Misplaced Pages, not official names for the event. WP:BEGIN (footnote 7) says that a title like "Pakistani-Iraqi relations" is descriptive and should not be bolded, even though such a term is likely to appear in general usage. This gives further credence to the idea that these are not "formal or widely accepted names", but descriptive ones, and thus do not need to be included if they don't comfortably fit."

Clarification on which versions of these titles are best supported by MOS:BOLDTITLE, WP:BEGIN, and any other MOS guidelines would be appreciated. (I realize both versions may be supported to some extent in some cases.) Thanks. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: It was decided that the broad application of MOS:BOLDTITLE was out of the jurisdiction of DRN. -- Nbound (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC) (DRN Case Volunteer)

Ugh, that last example. Any lead sentence containing "refers to" is almost always written incorrectly. —Designate (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's correct, however that's not the point of this discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The point appears to be concerning interpretation of this guideline's sentence "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". I think the little black dress sentence is a good example of distorted wording made in an effort to include the title. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Hepburn's dress is a good example of a title that's particularly distorting to incorporate into a sentence as a bold lead. In general, I like having a bold lead, but am pretty sure it's because I'm used to it as a visual stimulus. I do like bold to call attention to alternate names that are redirected to the page, especially if they appear slightly deeper in the lead, maybe not in the first sentence (though I mean specific alternate names, not just general descriptive phrases as would be the case with the Boston Marathon bombings). About "refers to": there was a discussion on moving WP:REFERS (which appears in an essay) to WP:NAD (a policy page), but I'm not sure it ever attracted the additional input I wanted before proceeding, and I lost track of it. I see that, however, as related to this issue: it's the desire to treat the title-topic as a term to be defined that results in the kind of sentence db8 is trying to avoid, with the bold phrase as the thing to be defined. That's how it's related to NAD. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

As for my undoing and 2001:'s examples, I undid them rather than substituted my own reworking because 2001: had done a surprising number of these out of the blue; I'm surprised I even found them. We were discussing just the Boston Marathon article, and then I saw all of these changes done without any consensus (we hadn't reached one at the Boston page). Many of them don't meet LEAD, but I'm not confident that just removing the bolding is right either. Either way, I don't see this discussion about these examples, but rather the general policy. Shadowjams (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussing the appropriateness of the fairly small number of applications is beyond the scope of this discussion in any case; any such discussion would have to involve the reverts as well, and both are certainly not MOS-talk issues. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that WP:REFERS, even though not a guideline, does help explain one often-misapplied point of WP:NAD; but in the examples given there, the bolded terms don't actually involve any awkward redundancies, so I'm not sure they're the best comparisons for these examples. The only contention over "refers to" here was in the "little black dress" example, which has since been changed...but still introduces a complete redundancy in the process of defining its subject, better covered by MOS:BEGIN. (Basically, the same point I've made over whether it's okay to say "The ABC was C of B of A" or similar.) I think WP:REFERS ought to cover when just simplifying wording as in the "computer architecture" example is enough, or when making the same change for the "little black dress" example still results in a WP:NAD-style definition for a term. (Thus making that explicitly cover redundancy and bolding as well with its examples, instead of just leaving them to MOS:INTRO.) And I agree, as I think most would, that bolding is usually good, as being a visually consistent and "standard" format for readability, when the basic MOS:BOLDTITLE guidelines are met without hitting any of the exceptions. (And of course, we're talking about those exceptions here.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• The current consensus is that bolding descriptive titles leads to awkward English and gives undue weight to a "name" for an event (or object) that isn't actually a name at all. The purpose of the first sentence is to define the (bolded) subject, or give a description of what the article is about. If there is no term to define ("May 15–17, 2013 tornado outbreak" is already defined, for example), there should be no bold. If an event does have a name, then bolding is usually OK. Thus "Boston Marathon bombings" can probably be bolded (assuming the event is most often referred to by that name, rather than, "the bombings at the Bombing Marathon" or similar). The rest probably should not be bolded. If a (non-reoccurring) event needs a date in its title, it is almost certainly not known as the "2013 blah blah" but rather just as a blah blah that occurred in 2013. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I also think that "Boston Marathon bombings" in particular is possibly a borderline case, and in previous discussions, I've noted that I think a bolded intro would make perfect sense if it didn't introduce improper redundancy. How would you suggest such an intro be worded, if we did bold the title there (as opposed to the current unbolded consensus title)? I think that's what determines the borderline case, whether it can be bolded or not without just adding a bunch of words. If it can be done, then I believe we should do it, but the problem is that I haven't seen a suggestion that works while fitting the overall policy. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff)

Like I said below, avoiding repetition at all costs is not desirable. Something like "The Boston Marathon bombings were a series of bombing attacks that occurred during the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013" would be fine by me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Without rehashing too much of what I've already said elsewhere, my approach is this: if there is a well known term used to refer to the article's subject, such as "Boston Marathon bombings", or "September 11 attacks", that phrase should be treated as a single "article" (in the linguistic sense) and be bolded. It doesn't matter if a part of that formalized title is later repeated.
  Some of 2001:'s examples could be done differently (I don't dispute all of them); but generally I believe his interpretation is that any repetition of the title in the lead sentence means we don't bold it (that's the impression I got at the marathon bombing talk page). That is an extreme departure from normal practice. It would apply to almost all articles that have a year in their title (7 July 2005 London bombings is another good example; the second sentence uses the date).
  There is a huge conceptual difference between a truly redundant phrase, and one whose title happens to make reference to a defining feature. The media, and thus common name of most events are not particularly creative; they will usually refer to themselves to some degree. That is the rule; it is a tiny exception to the much larger policy that 2001: is referring to.
  Finally, there are some practical points to bear in mind. 1) Bolding the title makes reading and skimming much easier, and helps anchor the article's title for the reader. Simply put, it is a tremendous help to our readers. 2) Many of the "reworks" to avoid the bolding "redundancy" end up being awkward passive tense sentences. It's enforcing a rule (or a novel interpretation of one) for its own sake. 3) Bolding it and anchoring it in the text makes squabbles over article titles themselves much easier to manage. Idiosyncratic article titles can't survive because they need to fit into the text. It's a nice inherent check and it helps make article title debates surprisingly scarce (more than one might expect). Shadowjams (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My issue isn't simply introducing a minor redundancy, but when basically the entire title is made redundant (while pushing down information as well.) You've previously suggested using a synonym like "explosions" in the unbolded part, but I don't think that really agrees with the core of the policy; WP:NAD states "A good definition is not circular, a one-word synonym or a near synonym." When we need to redefine and relink basically all of the title, that's when I think it definitely violates WP:BEGIN. I'd absolutely disagree with the current state of 7 July 2005 London bombings. That's certainly only a descriptive title, even more so than "Boston Marathon bombings", and it creates one of the exact issues that concerns me; it just defines the title itself: "the...'<date> bombings'...were suicide attacks..." rather than concisely defining the event itself. The WP:NAD suggestion before tangentially covers this (but could do so better.)

You're also suggesting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here; while it seems clear that a lot of articles do have bad intros (and not just bolding), that's seemingly due in part to people just copying the general format of other articles without reading the policy. I don't think the point about making "reading and skimming easier" makes sense, since the article title is already presented multiple times, including a much-larger version in the header, even if it's "common." Awkward passive-tense sentences are better than redundancy, as far as I read the policy; the goal isn't to avoid particular grammatical styles, it's to use "normal English", although I agree some of those probably could be rewritten (without needing to bold.) And finally, I don't think article title debates should factor into this discussion at all. Personally, I'd probably be more likely to dispute an less-favorable title that's prominently bolded in the first sentence, than if it's just used as a generic descriptor for the article.

I think a large portion of this still centers around our disagreement of what's descriptive and what isn't. From those examples, "September 11 attacks" is a widely used/formal name, even though also being descriptive, (and thus needs bolding, along with its alternatives), while "Boston Marathon bombings" has only developed as one of several descriptive names without any sourced evidence of acceptance. I believe the WP:TOOSOON essay is somewhat relevant, with lack of secondary-source coverage of all of the proposed names being an issue as well, wheres something like "September 11 attacks" has plenty of secondary coverage as actually being a recognized name by secondary sources as applying to general usage, rather than being just the title of news articles and thus assumed to be some sort of name, rather than a description. Frankly, WP:OR applies as well, using one of several common names as "the name" rather than just a title placeholder, and that's even ignoring the WP:BEGIN redundancy and definition issues. – (rfc | diff) 04:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the discussion here was precipitated by the idea of developing better clarity on this rule. Presumably, if we're taking the trouble to hash something out, we'd then modify the guideline to reflect our efforts. What's not clear to me reading thus far is what specific changes in language are being proposed, if any, to clarify the existing. So, are specific changes being proposed? What are they? ENeville (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Some context on the policy we're talking about

TLDR: The policy dates back about 18 months. There was a small discussion over 3 days between 4 editors (2 constitute most of it) before the change that is the center of this dispute. The two main participants (one of whom made the ultimate change) wanted to avoid descriptive titles from being bolded; contrasted with common or proper names. Even the discussion leading up to this change, if it were adequate, doesn't support the interpretation currently being advanced by 2001:. It's an oversight in a little looked at or discussed change, that was never intended to be read in the expansive, legalistic way being advanced above.

The examples, especially the 2011 Mississippi Flood example are being used to justify debolding a large number of articles under the premise that they are "redundant." They were added in this edit in January 2012. The discussion SilkTork referred to was started 3 days before he made the change: here. The GA review that SilkTork was referring to has only 1 mention of bolding, 2 days before the talk page discussion was started. In it, another editor was hesitant to give GA status to an article because... "I don't like is the decision by an editor to not have the title of this article bolded. It looks odd because it deviates from standard practice.". Incidentally, that article did have a bold title for most of its start, it was only this edit that changed that. It's worth noting that the article's BOLD lead didn't conform to the LEAD policy in a number of ways when Swarm made that change. The article passed GA status about a week after the MoS edit was made.

SilkTork's discussion has a nice history of the bolding policy. In it he refers to an essay called WP:SBE. It presents some egregious examples of cramming titles into leads. Note that 2001: is aware of the essay: . The discussion there, which is the impetus for the policy we're debating now, is between formal or recognized titles, and titles of convenience. It also primarily involved 2 editors, SilkTork and DavidLevy, and 2 other editors (from what I could tell). SilkTork made the edit within 4 days of starting the discussion.

Afterwards User:ENeville expressed concern over the speed of the changes, and with their substance... he suggested using WP:COMMONNAME as the litmus test for whether or not to bold and found the changes more confusing than helpful.

He ended with this line which I think he should be applauded for being so prophetic: "Following up, I remain concerned that this change moves the line but only makes it blurrier, thus not in the long term reducing contention the likes of which precipitated the proposal."

That was the end of the discussion, and from what I see, nobody much cared until now. Shadowjams (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The text previously read "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface." so I'm not sure there was a big change in policy. More likely, it was an attempt to explain what is a "descriptive title." I agree that blind adherence to "no duplication" is unwise, but again most of the provided examples are not names of things - they are descriptions of things. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the extent of 2001:'s changes. Maybe I think this because of the discussions at Talk:Boston Marathon bombings. That article, which started this debate, is the clearest example of a proper or COMMONNAME, and not merely a descriptive one. And even if you want to hedge about the term "descriptive", go read the SilkTork discussion I reference above and you'll see they are talking about a specific type of article being "descriptive." If you think this debate is being overstated, then go bold the Boston Marathon article, among a few others, and it will be an easy conclusion. Shadowjams (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(Again, you're overstating this supposed "extent of changes" as if it was suddenly applied to dozens of articles, and it's not relevant to the larger discussion.) In any case, you're ignoring the guidelines from MOS:BEGIN, which are just as important as MOS:BOLDTITLE. Whether the changes to BOLDTITLE (but not to BEGIN) were appropriate should not be the focus of this discussion; what's in the MOS is in the MOS, due to apparent consensus. You're basically saying "I don't like the prior policy consensus in this situation", which really isn't a great argument. I do not believe the guidance in WP:COMMONNAME footnote 3 applies here at all, and that policy even says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." (Emphasis mine, and the "more frequently" doesn't even apply here.) My reasoning also includes the unstated difference between a "common name" and a "formal or widely accepted name." I again do not believe you've shown that there is formal or widespread acceptance of this name, through reliable sources that aren't just personal analysis of news article titles.

I agree that the current policy is confusing, and that we need to work on providing better examples. But you still have not provided any rationale for why the "2011 Mississippi River floods" example doesn't apply to other similar articles, other than that it's apparently a "recurring event." The prior changes aren't event relevant due to WP:BEGIN covering the applicable cases. (But again, one only needs to look at the main Mississippi River floods article and similar disambiguation pages like Moore, Oklahoma tornado to see why the given example is descriptive and not recurring.)

ThaddeusB's point about not blindly avoiding duplication makes sense (there are many cases where duplication is indeed required or otherwise appropriate), but the larger point about whether things are actual names or verifiably only descriptions stands. The general guideline against redundancy makes sense here too, when the first two rules in MOS:BOLDTITLE don't fit.

Again, I cited WP:SBE as a rationale for making sure there are no WP:UNDUE endorsements of descriptive titles, so yes, I am aware of that essay. (I've also notified the users who participated in the discussion that led to the referenced BOLDTITLE change, though I do not believe that said change actually modified the policy itself.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of extra text that's not needed above, but in short, SBE's an essay, the BOLDTITLE edits have been explained as having minimal involvement from others, and your other policy arguments are the first I've heard them. I don't care much about the 2013 Mississippi example... but that SilkTork decided to include that as an example is not dispositive. The central consensus before and after is about merely descriptive titles, with some reference to awkwardness (which I discussed above; the passive tense end-run around sentences are equally if not more awkward). Shadowjams (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears there has been a misunderstanding regarding the discussion and edits of Jan 2012 in which I was involved. There was no change made to the guidance - rather, the situation was clarified. Put bluntly, before the edits, it was advised not to bold descriptive titles, after the edits it was advised not to bold descriptive titles. My personal preference aligns with those who prefer titles to be in bold for easy identification and general consistency; however, there has to be a recognition that there are some situations in which title bolding is not helpful - such as when language becomes distorted, resulting in a jarring and awkward read. Looking at the above discussion regarding examples of title bolding, I think that 2001's versions are closer to the guidelines (both before and after the Jan 2012 edits to the guideline), and those versions are the ones that it would be preferable to use. This is not to say that folks shouldn't continue to improve 2001's versions, but that reverting to a previous inelegant version is not helpful and is not going to progress matters. I am not watchlisting this page, so if there are further queries regarding either this comment, or my involvement in the Jan 2012 edits, please ping me. SilkTork 09:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As 2001:db8 and SilkTork noted, the January 2012 discussion's purpose was to clarify the existing practice, not to alter it. I'm sure that the current wording could be improved, but it's caused much less confusion than the previous wording did.
The intent (both before and after that discussion) has never been to avoid redundancy at all costs. We don't introduce redundancy for the sake of cramming the article's title into the lead, but if a subject is commonly known (as established via reliable sources) by a name containing one or more words also appearing in its description, this information is important and belongs in the lead.
In the case of the Boston Marathon bombings article, the question is whether "Boston Marathon bombings" is widely accepted as the event's name. Under the principle behind MOS:BOLDTITLE, it should appear in bold if it is (but not if it isn't). Such a determination should be made on the article's talk page.
If it's decided that "Boston Marathon bombings" has become the event's de facto name, the awkwardness can still be minimized. Instead of "The Boston Marathon bombings were a pair of bombings that occurred during the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013.", we could state that "The Boston Marathon bombings occurred on April 15, 2013, when two pressure cooker bombs exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing 3 people and injuring 264." —David Levy 12:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Boston Marathon example is the clearest to me, and indeed what started this discussion. The examples given initially above are a red herring. That was never the sole focus of this discussion, indeed the consensus appears to be the Boston Marathon bombings article is a clear example of what's not a descriptive title. I agree largely with Silk Tork in principle. The examples above were cherry picked, and were part of a broader pattern regarding the guideline. I'm comfortable, for now, with the "descriptive title" approach, in which the touchstone is whether or not the title is uniformly recognized as a title (even if there are some variations; e.g. September 11 and July 7 bombings). Shadowjams (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Citations in lead

At one time, I'm pretty sure there was a guideline that said citations were needed in the lead only if the statement was exceptionally open to challenge (for example, if conventional wisdom happened to be erroneous); otherwise, as long as the statement was well supported by sourced article text, the lead need not be cluttered with citations, for ease of reading. Did this change as the result of a discussion that someone could point me to? The current guideline seems far more complicated; it seems to say that the intro requires citations in the same manner as body text. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe WP:LEADCITE covers this issue, specifically the bit about "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". (Emphasis on redundant.) As I read the guideline, it does not require material to be fully cited in the lead (other than "direct quotations and contentious material about living persons") when that material is repeated and cited properly in the body of the article. Many good article have little-to-no citations in the lead, which I believe falls under this policy. As with many guidelines, consensus is required to not have citations in the lead even if they are in the body. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've often declined requests for citations in a lead on the grounds that the point is thoroughly discussed and adequately cited in the body, with the further suggestion that if the tagger feels this isn't so, then please restore the tag and state more specifically on the talk page what the sticking point might be. For some reason, when I was reviewing the guidelines this time, they seemed less supportive of that approach. "Balance the desire", although an elegant and diplomatic phrase, may be what made me see a more open invitation to demand what you rightly characterize as redundant citations in the lead. Thank you again for a thoughtful response. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)