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

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Shouldn't we use semantic markup in the lead?

In all cases where this MOS page describes giving the article's subject, in the lead's first sentence, in bold font, the effect is achieved using ''' wiki markup</nowiki> or the <b> HTML element. Although this renders aesthetically identical text as the <strong> HTML element or {{strong}} wiki markup would, the former is semantically meaningless.

Shouldn't we transition our MOS instructions to teach the use of semantic markup instead of mere typography? Especially where the editorial intent is to convey emphasis, importance, seriousness, or urgency through the altered font? I feel that the question is rhetorical as I believe it is incumbent on us that we must!

Considering that these semantic elements have been standard since HTML5 (and supported by all major browsers as well)[1][2] we are considerably late implementing these already. And continued procrastination could easily be seen as editorial incompetence very soon; IMHO. What do others think about this? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest we waste no time in doing this. EEng 22:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• In theory, yes, just like we should be using the <q>...</q> element around all inline quotations (those not marked up as blockquotes). The demand seems rather low. A side issue is that even if we did go that route, it should probably be for the article title only. Bolded synonyms are bolded for a different reason: a typographic visual aid for those who got to the page via a redirect and might otherwise wonder why they're at a page that doesn't match what they searched for. Bolding the subject/title itself in the lead is the kind of thing <strong> is ostensibly for (according to the HTML5 spec; they changed the meaning of this tag, which originally meant "yelling more loudly than with <em>").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with your comments, save two points, of which I am compelled to rebut. Regarding the <q> element, W3C says: "the use of <q> elements to mark up quotations is entirely optional; using explicit quotation punctuation without <q> elements is just as correct."[3] And, your suggestion that "demand [for use of semantic markup] [is seemingly] low", is a bit of fallacy I am certain you did not maliciously proffer, and as certain, it could never emerge as a "finding of fact". I'd rather not debate the matter to any finer nuance, unless you feel a need to discuss it further. I'd much rather, instead, focus on the allegiance I share with the larger part of all that you said. I appreciate, very much, the insight you've shared.--John Cline (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  I wasn't making a "correctness" point at all. Using <q> would be semantically richer, and permit user-level CSS control (e.g. of different quotation-marks style). It would also be very useful for tools, like bots to build lists of quotations without a citation near them, and lists of long quotations that should be reformatted into block quotes, and so on. On the second point, that's a straw man; I never said demand for semantic markup in general is low, only for those two elements. (I am the author of the vast majority of our semantic markup templates, and you can thank me for most of the mentions of semantic markup it the MoS.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• The b element is assigned a semantic meaning in HTML 5 (and the W3C's most-recent recommendation, version 5.2):

  The b element represents a span of text to which attention is being drawn for utilitarian purposes without conveying any extra importance and with no implication of an alternate voice or mood, such as key words in a document abstract, product names in a review, actionable words in interactive text-driven software, or an article lede.

  Our use of the b element clearly meets this intent. --Izno (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  Based on this, there clearly izno need to change our current practice. EEng 03:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  You do seem to enjoy every opportunity you get to pun off my user name. --Izno (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  There iznothing wrong with that, izthere? EEng 03:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  Not particularly. --Izno (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree; the <b> element has utilitarian value, as described it the <blockquote> given but it has no semantic meaning whatsoever, and accessibility is not increased one iota by its use. Here's another quote from the same page you cited above:

  The <b> element should be used as a last resort when no other element is more appropriate. In particular, headings should use the <h1> to <h6> elements, stress emphasis should use the <em> element, and importance should be denoted with the <strong> element.

  I'm not suggesting that we never use <b>...</b> or '''...'''; we clearly need the utility of that markup. I, nevertheless, am saying: "we should not forsake use of the <strong> element when importance is meant to convey". The example I stated of giving the article's subject in the first sentence of the lead in boldface is textbook misuse of the <b> element or ''' wiki markup. There izno string of text in an article more important than its very subject (when first given) and no better time to speak of semantic markup than when instructing editors to give that subject in the lead's first sentence using boldface font. Do you wholeheartedly disagree?--John Cline (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  Your emphasis (and strong) added, I might note. I'll be along later. Maybe SMC will get to it first. ;) --Izno (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  Need I say it? There izno hurry. EEng 12:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  There izno need to belabor the point. --Izno (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  You are correct Izno, I should have mentioned that the quote was not faithful; because of my semantic alterations. Deception was not my intent! Disclosing more fully, I should have concluded the passage with an ellipsis instead of a period because the source text actually did continue, albeit extraneous to the reasons for its use.

  Aside that, I am keenly interested in weighing as much information as the community will lay upon the question, as asked in the original posting. I do have strong inclinations regarding the answer as well, and will not sway except by extremely cogent rationale. If such exists, I know it will be given, and I remain.--John Cline (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  John Cline is right about the purpose of <strong> and it being logically applicable to the subject's name being highlighted in the lead sentence. It's just a matter of whether the community would GaF enough to use it. All of our semantic markup templates were opposed early on, as was mentioning them in MoS and using them in articles, but today they are not controversial at all (though highly optional). The thing to do is probably to create a template with a very short name, and (for even better semantic markup) have it also apply the <dfn> element (semantic markup for the defining instance of a term on the page; also used in {{Term}} for glossaries). MoS could say that the template can (not must) be used, and why. Then see if people start using it. I certainly would. This is something I've been thinking about since ca. 2006, shortly after I arrived here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  I'm going on vacation so I'll be AFK for a bit, but here's some thoughts (since I finished binging a TV series): The argument both of you need to make is that the phrase we are presenting as bold here is being presented as bold because it is "important" such that there should be an assigned "voice or mood" (the documentation for <b> says that it is for when such is not present, so I am assuming the <strong> documentation says the opposite, or nearly so). (Of note, the other two cases in which you would use the strong element are "seriousness" and "urgency"; neither is relevant here.) I would contend that our use of bold in the lead is not such, but instead solely to aid recognition (i.e., "utilitarian purposes"). I certainly do not think our use in our lead is a misuse, by any means. Moreover, a pair of the example uses of the b-tag are exactly our use case for it in the lead (namely, "lead", as well as "key word"). That said, I'm fairly certain I've seen (more than a few years ago) that our use of <b> for the lead influenced the WHATWG's addition of semantics to the bold element. Lost to memory, if so (so have some grains of salt with my comment).

  <dfn> I've had in mind as being a tag of interest and a review of the spec indicates that that element makes reasonable sense in our context--I suspect it was never adopted here because it was too HTML-ish for wikitext (and it may not have been in, or allowed in, the parser for A While after we transitioned to MediaWiki, whereas the bold marks clearly were probably native constructs). I just don't know if I'm okay with including Yet Another Template (albeit a small one), especially in the lead. (I'm fairly certain the tag version would be overwhelmingly rejected.) Though, were we to transition to use of dfn, we'd still need to think about how to mark up the other uses of, say, the topic's alternate names. (And then all the other uses indicated in WP:MOSBOLD.)

  On the overall notion of marking up our pages with semantics, I approve. The overall directive seems to be missing but we have places like WP:Accessible where semantic HTML == accessible HTML. I wonder if we should maybe have a general rule somewhere on the main page that says "strive to make our HTML semantic" (somewhere in the context of "keep wikitext simple" down in Miscellany, just for contrast). --Izno (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  I would like to think so. I've been slowly working semantic HTML into MoS all over the place. One stumbling block has been a WP:WPMATH clique at WT:MOSMATH who have been stonewalling against accessible indentation markup; it's quite literally a WP:POLICYFORK against the main MoS page, MOS:ACCESS, MOS:DLIST, Help:List, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• On an aside, <u> now has a semantic meaning. Ah, WHATWG, why do you do this instead of just defining a new element when you know that the element in question is never used like so? --Izno (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Soon we will have editors here insisting that that is the only possible semantics for that element, that it always was the only possible semantics for that element, that if you use that markup intending to generate underscored text you're making a serious mistake, and that the only correct way to obtain the same visual effect is to use a span with a text-decoration element. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I actually agree with the sentiment of "use semantic markup" where possible. However, for the use of <u> I think we would need to have a discussion, because the use that WHATWG has assigned the element is a bit niche (Chinese text--the other, for misspellings, we use [sic] and co.). We can always restyle the element as well, as we've since done with <cite> if we should agree that its use makes sense for our cases (default for cite is italics, which we've removed because we wrap an entire citation in the element, and clearly the entire citation being italicized is wrong :). --Izno (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

      Strongly agree. WHATWG are just making up weird shit that bears no relation to what people are actually doing or expecting, and it's doesn't agree with W3C's spec, which has way more buy-in. Even if W3C went along with it, the existence of a semantic markup that can be used doesn't mean it must be, especially if we have a better approach. If we were really going to obsess over semantic perfection, there's way more important markup to do, like what started this section, and using <q>...</q> around quotations, and so on. A lot of this stuff is subjective. What really qualifies for <strong> and how this differs from <b> is open to some debate, and people have been arguing since day one about the finer points of <code>, <samp>, and <kbd>. We should keep WP:Don't be a fanatic in mind. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • This is one reason to ignore WHATWG, a tiny and dysfunctional micro-consortium of just a few companies, and go with W3C's HTML5 spec, the one supported by a much larger number of organizational parties. WHATWG, for example, has forked the meaning and the permissible content of the <cite> element away from W3C's definition (the gist of which pre-dates WHATWG's existence); W3C tried briefly going along with WHATWG's version, and the developer community rebelled, so WHATWG is off in the dark with their own stupid "spec-fork" that does not match real-world usage. I've been applying periodic pressure to get this resolved, and the handful of gatekeepers over at WHATWG refuse to budge, insisting that they have the One True Spec, and that W3C is full of it. There was a huge personality clash between some people at these two organizations over a decade ago, and I don't think anything is going to repair it, other than someone at WHATWG dying, getting fired, or gracefully retiring. It's really pretty shameful how childish this mess is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

MOSFILM and MEDMOS discussions

Watchers of this page may be interested in WT:FILM#Request for comment on spoilers and lead sections and WT:MOS#Citations in the lead. --Izno (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Bug in note

Foiled again!

-EEng

There seems to be a bug in the note that SMcCandlish added to format of first sentence. It does't open, can't see its contents. Thinker78 (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed The other notes are enclosed in standard {{code|

• Hemoglobin (American) or haemoglobin (British)

References

As you can see, there are too many different ways in which the spelling differences are presented.

The proposal is to update the first sentence so that it is uniform and just contains the alternative names in bold, with no links or references, like caliber in the example above. Since the main topic has nothing to do with American or British spelling, I think it only serves as a distraction to mention it and should be removed. Vpab15 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer Vpab15 Vpab15 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Sometimes editors include the links because we get people changing the wording to what they think is correct or prefer. They then have to be pointed to MOS:ENGVAR. But the link(s) for the spelling differences can be placed in a note . Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose per WP:CREEP. None of these are confusing or broken, in a reader-facing sense, and editors are not internally fighting about it frequently, so there's no actual problem to address. There is no requirement that our articles be worded exactly the same over and over again, and going that direction is likely to make our content seem more boring/repetitious. If we did end up having a rule about this, the "or" pipe trick is a useful approach, as it saves a lot of space and isn't distracting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: I wouldn't say it is confusing, but it is definitely distracting and inconsistent. If possible, the same rule should apply to all cases. I think the proposed rule is simple and well defined in the cases it covers, so I don't think WP:CREEP applies here. Regarding the pipe trick, that is a case of WP:EASTEREGG, so it would be better to not have any link in my opinion. Vpab15 (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  If we don't like the pipe trick, then having a footnote would probably be practical. We don't want to lose the information or (worse) imply that the spelling can be randomized at whim and isn't dialectal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: No point. They're all correct. Additionally, sometimes something is Commonwealth English and sometimes it's British English specifically. The English Wikipedia is not just for British or American people – it's for all people who have an understanding of the English language, so those links may be highly useful. SUM1 (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose per WP:CREEP. The English Wikipedia faciliates to all varieties of English and not just American English. Spy-cicle (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Editors should take a view on a case by case basis. Other editors can disagree, and a consensus arrived at.Dougsim (talk)

MOS:BOLDLEAD vs MOS:REDUNDANCY

There is a conflict in the Manual of Style recommendations outlined in Bold title and Redundancy. This is specifically the case where the article is covering a topic within a series, common for sports events and awards ceremonies. The reasons for MOS:REDUNDANCY are very clear, in that the opening sentence should be brief, avoid repeated terms or long sentence constructions and outline in plain English a basic description of the topic, linking any relevant terms. I feel these are solid guidelines for writing a good first sentence and on that basis I've produced lead sentences such as the following:

• The 2019 IAAF World Athletics Championships (Arabic: [بطولة العالم لألعاب القوى]) is the seventeenth edition of the biennial, global athletics competition organized by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF).

Using MOS:BOLDTITLE as an edit summary, I've seen several instances of users removing the link to the main series topic from sentences like the above, or worse rephrasing the lead sentence to replace a basic description with a tautologous one:

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

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

If we interpreted the title to be a descriptive one, we could probably avoid the issue altogether by not placing it in bold at all. Don't see that happening though. MOS:AVOIDBOLD is so commonly violated. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sillyfolkboy: As Paul_012 notes, MOS:AVOIDBOLD addresses any conflict between MOS:BOLDLEAD and MOS:REDUNDANCY (aka MOS:FIRST), by making it clear that MOS:BOLDLEAD is not absolute. MOS:FIRST even says (emphasis mine): If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. (I guess maybe that needs to read, "If convenient and without resorting to linguistic gymnastics" instead of "if possible". Many things are possible...)

However, MOS:BOLDAVOID does explicitly prohibit linking in the bolded words of the lead sentence, so your first example would be in violation of that point of policy, and that's probably a better edit summary justification than MOS:BOLDTITLE for why it would need to be changed. (That being said, I agree with Paul_012 that a no-bold title would be better than nonsense like your second example. People get too hung up on the Must. Have. Bold. Words! thing and lose track of MOS:AVOIDBOLD.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That being said, series cues for articles that are effectively subpages of an overarching article (such as the examples you give, articles on specific events that are part of a recurring series, like awards shows or sports championships) do seem like they could be handled better. We have infobox and navbox linkages to the next and previous events in linear progressions, and we have the WP:SERIES-style infoboxes that can be used to group series articles that aren't a linear progression. (Also, ugh, I just discovered that every one of the latter is a separate, purpose-created template implemented using the generic {{sidebar}} code, rather than having some shared, structured metatemplate code they all invoke. That's nasty.) Regardless, neither feels both effective and prominent enough to relate individual event articles to the parent event series article, especially as none of them are displayed on mobile. Nothing at WP:CLNT even covers this particular case, really, in my reading.

Perhaps a hatnote template of some sort (akin to the disambiguation hatnotes)? Or, it could be that linking in the bold text, as you propose, is indeed the simplest solution. But I think it'd have to be proposed, discussed, and (if there is consensus) documented as an explicit exception to MOS:BOLDAVOID, if it's to be applied in the article namespace without being subject to revision or reversion by other editors on basis of the currently-established policy. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

@Sillyfolkboy: Yes, well, the simple truth is that I have no idea why the policy is what it is. Presumably there may be some old discussions archived somewhere that gave rise to that policy, and it may be possible to track those down to get an idea of the issues considered at the time. (Checking the edit history for the page and determining when the MOS:BOLDAVOID content was added, and by which editor, may help in that search.) But the footnote on that section (to which you refer in your original post) provides some justification, and in full it reads:

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

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

IOW, this:

Text that contains a long link

Looks far more like this:

Text that contains a long link

Than it looks like this:

Text that contains a long link

So, to whatever extent the subject-bolding in an article's first sentence has merit and is a useful thing for readers, I have to agree that linking from within that text greatly diminishes the visibility, and therefore the effectiveness, of that styling. (The actual value of bolding the subject is, of course, debatable, but MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:BOLDAVOID taken together seem like they reduce to, "If you're going to place a link in the bold text, just don't bother with the bolding, the effect is ruined", which as you note is basically Paul_012's advice (though as they note, rarely followed), and, like I said, is something I find difficult to argue with.)

Ultimately, though, the "why" is kind of secondary / tangential — regardless why any particular policy was adopted, the fact is that it's policy, and therefore needs to either be followed, or changed through a formal process (outlined at WP:GUIDANCE). -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

If anyone replies to me on this talk page, please don't ping me. This talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, FeRDNYC, how are you distinguishing MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:BOLDAVOID? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead
— MOS:BOLDAVOID

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

(The third-and-final paragraph in that section is MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD, which isn't relevant here.) Arguably one could interpret MOS:BOLDAVOID as covering the entire section, and therefore representing all three paragraphs. But since that reading doesn't allow for easy distinction between the first and second paragraph, the each-shortcut-attached-to-one-paragraph reading is far more conducive to discussion of the guidelines 😏 in question.

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

Proper names and titles section

Danbloch, regarding this and this, what are you speaking on? Please don't ping me when you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Information on including the non-intuitive plural form in brackets. Bold or not?

I noticed several articles, whose plural form is not intuitive has the plural is beside it in parentheses. I was surprised to see there is not mention of this in MOS:LEAD, particularly MOS:BOLDSYN. Would anyone object if I boldly added it? (if you don't like it you can rephrase it or revert). Egs. Mitochondrion, Dice, Goose, nucleus, Quantum, Calf, Genus, Matrix (mathematics), ova.

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

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

I suppose technically the plural inclusion is covered by this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extensive changes to the introduction

Regarding this, this, this and this, I fully reverted the introduction to its long-standing form. If there are any aspects that actually need changing, then let's discuss, but something like the "As a general rule of thumb" piece regarding the leads of articles has thorough consensus via various discussions, including this extensive 2014 RfC. To soften the language after that extensive discussion is something that should be supported by another big discussion. Back then, editors were generally against softening the language changing the wording to "length should be commensurate with the size of the article," which removed any mention of generally sticking to four paragraphs. A number of editors supported softening it in some way, but slightly more supported no softening at all. It was felt by a number of editors that the "As a general rule of thumb" wording is all the softening that is needed; this aspect was duplicated in the introduction since it was already lower in the guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The language used in the lede paragraphs of countries/regions etc names.

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

RFC on MEDLEAD

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

RFC related to LEAD

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. This guideline has been mentioned by some editors, and perhaps editors familiar with it would like to share their views. (This is a completely different RFC about WP:MEDMOS.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether a particular WP:REDIRECT section agrees with actual practice

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Redirect § Deletion section is out of step with practice. It is relevant to MOS:BOLDSYN.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility concerns

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

Section links from intro paragraphs?

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

I don't think we're saying it explicitly, because editors just don't do it (like, 99.99% of them don't). If we're getting some tiny fraction playing WP:WIKILAWYER games ("You can't stop me, since there's no rule against it"), we could add it to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked, since it would simply be codifying an overwhelming and consistent long-term consensus. Some of the generalities of WP:BETTER and MOS:TONE and WP:SELFREF and MOS:YOU obviously apply here: WP doesn't write instructionally "at" the reader except when really necessary, e.g. for navigational needs between articles. Even then, it's better to just integrate material as in-flow links, e.g. When the company [[#New headquarter|relocated to Denver]], ... (e.g., we encourage the paring down of "See also" sections by working the cross-referenced articles into the main article text instead). But there's generally no need to do even this in a lead section. The entire point of the lead is that it's a tight summary of an article rich in detail, and everyone already understand that the details are to be found below the lead. Using explicitly Wikipedia-self-referential "(see [[#Some section|Some section]])" cross-references in the lead is just terrible encyclopedia writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe we've only had discussion on this point, no specific guidance in the MOS-proper. A reason why one perhaps should not put such links in articles is that they duplicate the immediate table of contents. It might also WP:SURPRISE someone expecting to go to a different article. --Izno (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

BOLDSYN

When I first read "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles...are placed in bold" per MOS:BOLDSYN, I understood it to mean boldface was limited to (1) the first occurrence of the title and (2) significant alternative titles, and no other uses. However, according to this edit by Mathglot, the word "only" is just limiting how many "occurrence[s] of the title" should be bolded.

This seems confusing, if not in conflict with MOS:BOLDREDIRECT: "Use boldface...for terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section (for example, subtopics of the article's topic...)". While such terms aren't too likely to be used in the first sentence, it still seems possible.

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

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

Guess I'll comment. I do not understand the issue. "The word 'only' is just limiting how many 'occurrence[s] of the title' should be bolded."? Why would the terms need to be bolded again? The title of the article should be bolded in the lead (and article overall) once unless it's a MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID matter. Alternative terms should be bolded once in the lead or in a section where the term redirects to. I reverted per this and because, like I stated when reverting, we don't want newbies repeatedly bolding the title, as is sometimes done. The "only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles" wording is consistent with MOS:BOLD.

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

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

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

We could at least break up the first sentence of MOS:BOLDSYN for clarity, like this:

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

If there are no objections I'll go ahead and make this change. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This is a highly watched talk page; there's no need to ping individual users who haven't chosen to take part in a given discussion. Doing so could give the appearance of WP:CANVASSING. If more users' input is desired, I'd be happy to post a request for comment instead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure how to compress that into simpler language without some work, and I have other stuff to do today. It should all be covered at MOS:BOLD, and only summarized as it pertains to leads in particular at MOS:LEAD's MOS:BOLDSYN, with a cross-ref. to MOS:BOLD for more detail.

PS: I don't feel canvassed; I'm one of the main MoS "shepherds" and ultimately actually wrote a lot of this material, so if part of it is unclearly worded, or has drifted out-of-step with the ground truth (either by later edits to it or because consensus practice has overwhelmingly changed), I'm probably in a good position to comment on the matter. I don't have a particular view on this to push. I care that the guidelines reflect actual best practices, and that they do not substantively change without very good reason (non-trivial changes to MoS – actually different, rather than just clarified, rules – can affect thousands, potentially millions, of articles).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) should also be in boldface, unless doing so would result in excessive bolding.

Only use boldface for the first occurrence of a given term, unless the term is a synonym of the title that redirects to a specific section.

Hopefully this communicates the accepted practice without too much WP:CREEP. The example sentence(s) could be tweaked to emphasize the relative points of each statement as well. Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Never underestimate the propensity for uncommon but insistent individuals trying to to pull the "There is no exact rule against the unhelpful thing I want to do" act. And that also gives us an easy way to link to MOS:BOLDREDIRECT without an explicit "See ..." cross-reference. zr would be important, since MOS:LEAD isn't what governs that redirect-bolding stuff, but is just mentioning it passing. I've learned the hard way that the best means of preventing WP:POLICYFORK problems is that when Page A is using/mentioning/summarizing a rule from Page B, we ensure that Page A's material has an in situ cross-ref. (of one style or the other) to Page B's pertinent and controlling material. Otherwise people are apt to make changes at Page A that make it conflict with Page B over time. That may even by why this very thread is open. PS: It's also worded (with "if it occurs in the lead") to make it clear that not everything that redirects to this page must necessarily be mentioned and bolded in the lead. Yet another loophole closed!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

What about this for the second part:

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

Personally, I think it's more intuitive to speak of redirect "targets" than "anchors". Saying "a specific part of the article" instead of "a specific section" also allows for redirects to smaller subdivisions of text such as individual paragraphs. I think we only need to say "first occurrence" once; it should implicitly apply in both situations described ("once if it occurs in the lead and once again in the [other part]"). I think most users will instinctively want to emphasize the first (after the lead) occurrence if anything. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linking to a section is long-standing practice. This guideline should reflect that. I personally don't care whether a redirected term is bolded once or twice. But any proposal to change how we target redirects should be taken up at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

"I wouldn't bold in the section if the term is bolded in the lead. I wouldn't redirect the term to a section if it's mentioned and bolded in the lead." Well, that doesn't match actual practice. I already gave a really obvious example why something should be bolded and link to a section, but not appear in the lead, e.g. a name of a company officer in an "Boardmembers and officers" section at a company article. If you want to propose that we stop boldfacing redirects terms in sections, then you should open an RfC at WT:MOSBOLD, since that really has nothing to do with leads. I can already predict what the outcome will be. :-) Again, there is no connection between boldfacing in the lead as a synonym, and bolding in the body as a redirect link-target. They serve different purposes, and most often apply to different things. Only in odd cases is something going to be a bolded synonym in the lead yet also be a redirect to a section (or anchored paragraph in a section). It'll mostly be when something is sometimes a synonym of the general topic but also has a more specifically defined, narrow usage (usually within a specific field) and we expect that the readership is mostly looking for that specific sense and should be redirected right to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Should an SPLC classification as a hate group be automatically leadworthy?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a strong consensus that SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. Editors agree that SPLC, like other sources, should not be treated as automatically leadworthy.

There is a consensus that inclusion of SPLC classifications should be decided on a case-by-case basis, involving reference to how other sources cover the particular SPLC classification of the group at stake. For example, a classification widely supported by other sources is more likely to be worthy of inclusion than a classification disputed by other sources.

There is no consensus on what threshold of secondary coverage should be required for inclusion.

— feminist (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Should an SPLC classification as a hate group be automatically leadworthy? is the neutrally-worded RFC statement. I've left my nomination explanation below, and I'll notify the relevant places about the discussion (Talk:SPLC, WP:CENT and WP:RSN are the ones that spring to mind). SITH (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Nomination explanation: I note that it is rather common for articles on groups classified by the SPLC as "hate groups" to have this in their lead. The lead of the SPLC article itself has one sentence claiming their classifications are "widely accepted", which is immediately followed by a somewhat contradictory sentence noting that their classifications have been the "subject of criticism" from others. Already, there are more citations supporting the latter sentence in that article.

For example:

1. 1: Washington Post published opinion piece arguing the SPLC "lost all credibility" over the Quilliam incident
2. 2: Washington Post magazine article which questions the fairness of their classifications
3. 3: USA Today published opinion piece arguing that the SPLC abuses its classification system to gain political power and financial benefit
4. 4: Politico Magazine piece suggesting the classification system is "overstepping its bounds"
5. 5: New York Times published opinion piece arguing the SPLC unfairly targets liberals
6. 6: Wall Street Journal published opinion piece by a First Amendment lawyer who believes her group has been unfairly targeted
7. 6: The Week article describing the SPLC's recent classification increases as a "sad hysteria"

Furthermore, the SPLC was recently dropped by Twitter (6, 7) from their safeguarding program.

Even PolitiFact (8) has questioned some of their recent conclusions.

Essentially, I don't think the lead of SPLC, specifically, that its classifications are "widely accepted and cited in academic and media" is true anymore, as the above-cited media has begun to question their conclusions. With regards to the wider application to Wikipedia article leads, this recent turn to considering their verdicts less reliable leads me to question whether their opinion on a given person or entity warrants automatic inclusion in the lead paragraphs, and whether this constitutes due weight. Instead of a formulaic "this organisation has been classified as hateful by a group whose own race relations practices are under investigation", we should treat each group or person individually and look for more reliable sources. SITH (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• No, not in lede But this is regardless of the Quilliam situation. SPLC is RSOPINION, maybe one weighted heavily by other media sources, but its still opinion, and we should not highlight a singular opinion about a person/group in the lede. If there's clear agreement from sources that the SPLC's classification is correct, and that classification is a key part of the person/group's notability, that then can be included. But if its really only the SPLC making the call, and/or that that classification is not a significant part of the person/entity, then it should not be in the lead (too much UNDUE). Body, yes, but not lede. --Masem (t) 22:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Wrong place, but yes, sure. - The SPLC is still widely cited in academia and media, and it's very strange to claim otherwise. It's not hard to find critical sources for it, which is one reason it should be attributed. It's never been hard to find critical sources, and presenting it as a recent change misrepresents the history of the group and those it criticizes. It's extraordinarily easy, still, to find examples of it being cited without qualification. Further, people within the organization are still very commonly cited as experts in works about hate groups, extremist ideologies, etc. Collecting a handful of mostly opinion pieces is not compelling, because you have not contrasted this with the overwhelming number of reliable sources which still use the SPLC.

The "dropped by Twitter" thing is a right-wing/far-right talking point, as which is clear when the Washington Examiner and The Christian Post are the best sources you could find for this detail. Even setting aside that, it's pretty silly to think this would matter unless we think that Twitter is also an authority on extremism. Twitter, as a company, isn't a reliable source for anything (perhaps not even Twitter's own policies). There are, however, still countless reliable news sources which regularly cite the SPLC. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

As others have now pointed out, this is completely the wrong place to form consensus on this. I hope nobody is seriously suggesting that the manual of style should single-out this one American political organization. This belongs at RSN and RSP, not here. Grayfell (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey Grayfell, thanks for your comments. I'd be more than happy to have an admin or uninvolved user move it to those locations, it's just that it has become a de facto standard for lead paragraphs which is why I put it here. I did advertise the discussion at RSN, for what it's worth. With regards to the "right-wing/far-right talking point", I don't really move in those circles so I can't comment on it, but (yes, technically original research) comparing archived versions of Twitter's T&S partner page does appear to corroborate what those two sources say. I'm more coming at this from the perspective of an aversion to formulaic article leads and consideration of due weight, the nomination isn't in any way politically motivated. SITH (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, but this is in the wrong venue. This is a question about sourcing, not about lead sections. The venue for that is WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• No per nom and Masem. – Levivich 23:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  Rhodo has a good point about "automatic", but I want to clarify that I think No, it shouldn't be "presumably" lead-worthy, nor is it "often" lead-worthy, nor is it "widely-accepted", etc. Semantics aside, SPLC designation should not be given any more weight than anyone else's opinion about anything, per arguments along those lines above. – Levivich 04:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Bad question - almost nothing "automatically" goes in the lead, but an SPLC classification often merits inclusion, determined on a case by case basis. Obviously an "automatic" inclusion isn't going to pass, so this formulation can only serve to bolster arguments to remove SPLC mentions with a "consensus to not automatically include". Hence, bad question. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  Hi Rhododendrites thanks for this. As I've just said above, whether it is in the MoS or not, it appears to be a de facto standard. If you go through the SPLC list and the corresponding Wikipedia articles, I can't seem to find one where the fact that the SPLC has listed them is not in the lead paragraph. I see what you mean though, I just can't think of a way wording the question in a concise way which acknowledges this, but I'm open to re-wording it (and restarting the discussion) if someone else can do a better job. Thanks, SITH (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Bad question — I find myself concurring with Rhododendrites: what is ever "automatically" lead-worthy? Grayfell's arguments make a good case that an SPLC designation is presumably lead-worthy in most circumstances, but few decisions for an encyclopedia should be made "automatically". The RFC question was posed in a loaded way, such that anyone who thinks, "Well, sometimes we ignore the rules" could logically answer "no" while still holding that the SPLC designation should be included in the lead most of the time. I should add that "widely accepted" is not at all contradictory with having been the "subject of criticism"; widely is not universally. (This also doesn't really seem like a Manual of Style kind of question, but whatever, we're here now.) XOR'easter (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• No, per nom. See also these articles from Politico and The Atlantic which suggest that the SPLC is not necessarily 100% reliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• No basically per Masem, but I'd go further. Masem is (almost) saying that it is time we stopped treating the SPLC as some kind of special source. I agree with that, but I'd go all the way and say they should not automatically be body-worthy, either. They should be just another WP:RSOPINION. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Bad question, wrong place, not the issue Per Rhododendrites, Greyfell, Xor etc. My own input: 1. Most hate groups will be classified as such, or at least criticised for their actions / behaviour / events / points of view, in lots of other media who may also be referring to SPLC as part of their overall commentary, but may equally be using law enforcement or similar. 2. SPLC are themselves notable, and their opinion on groups they categorise are by default something of a significant fact. It is an opinion, and they are not the sole arbiters, but in and of itself it can be seen as either reinforcing established perspectives, or the lead-off into discussions about the controversial nature of the organisation. That they might be wrong is another issue entirely, but being wrong doesn't invalidate everything at all times or disqualify their inclusion. 3. Following on from #1 & #2, the notability of SPLC is usually intrinsically tied to coverage in third party media. Sufficient coverage may therefore reflect significant weight of sources and drive its relevance into the lede. 4. in the absence of coverage of the SPLC classification, whether it is a notable / reliable / significant opinion to qualify is subjective. Koncorde (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. Per Masem etc. WP:NPOV says we should only make a statement in Wikipedia's voice if it is established, without doubts or opinions, by a wide variety of sources. As such relying on only one source, even one held in high esteem, is never enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Bad Question The answer to almost any MOS question that asks if X should "automatically" occur is always "No, but..." There is little that automatically belongs in articles that the CCPOL don't already cover. Phrasing the question this way slants the responses towards the "no" and obscures the "but" and in this case the "but" is very important. As in, "...but very often mentioning the SPLC evaluation is very useful to readers." It is often (though not always, as Masem notes) the clearest, most reliable, most neutral way to introduce a group's anti-whoever POV. We don't fail to mention the Sith's ideology in the lede to their article, do we? (checking... no, we don't ...a kraterocratic organization ...driven by a machiavellian agenda of galactic domination and revenge) Using a SPLC evaluation in the lede similarly often puts an organization into context. Trying to formulate the MOS to include or exclude SPLC smacks of politically-biased article gamesmanship when the real question is either for RSN (as Greyfell notes) or for the article's talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Bad question since you're asking about a specific article and then framing it as a universal question. Obviously nobody is going to support a universal requirement to include a particular source in the lead automatically, but this doesn't meaningfully answer the question of the specific article you're asking about (as you seem to want it to.) But at the very least secondary sourcing about the SPLC's description of a subject is a clear indicator it might belong in the lead, and that seems to exist here. --Aquillion (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. This is a case-by-case question, and the intent to force it out from the lead of all articles appears pretextual. Guy (help!) 17:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. Agree with Adoring nanny. SPLC should not only not be given special treatment in ledes, but further, it is itself a very controversial advocacy organization with many scandals and errors of its own, and should be treated with caution as a source. See here for just the tip of the iceberg on that: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312 . If this RFC is in the wrong place, I hope an admin will move it to the right place. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Generally yes. SPLC remains the world leader in documenting, researching and reporting on hate groups. Despite the naysayers and some outlier false positives they remain the leading authority. Those who have been labeled as such, especially racists, transphobes and homophobes have been working tirelessly to smear them for decades with very limited success. Their hate group label is usually quite surprising for organizations that purport to be charitable, loving, educational, etc. If there is serious blowback from the label in reliable sources it can also be included with due weight. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Bad Question First of all, this isn't a style issue. It's a question about content and sourcing, so it's in the wrong place. Plus it's phrased badly. Nothing should be "automatically" in the lead, except perhaps the name of the subject of the article. The outcome of this question doesn't matter, since it will provide zero practical guidance going forward. This RFC should be closed as malformed. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Usually yes. SPLC designations are important and nearly always if a group is designated then multiple secondary sources will state that the SPLC designated the group. However lead inclusion should be balanced according to coverage in secondary sources and evaluated on a case by case basis.--Eostrix (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Never. Of course it shouldn't be automatic, and SPLC designations shouldn't be used in articles at all. The SPLC is essentially a "ratings" group, which explains its frequently reference by numerous secondary sources — and its designations do not describe objective facts about supposed "hate groups". Another quasi-political group, the NRA, evaluates politicians with "ratings" that are frequently cited in media outlets—but Wikipedia is hardly going to include them in biographies unless there's some obvious need to do so. Ditto the Federalist Society, etc. Even presumably "neutral" consumer ratings organizations, like J.D. Power and Consumer Reports, although widely cited elsewhere, aren't generally used in Wikipedia articles (unless a specific rating led to a news-worthy event/effect). "Hate group" is an obviously subjective and loaded term with no real meaning (and the Federal government does not designate such groups). Wikipedia ought to give factual information about organizations and individuals, not parrot third-party "ratings", no matter how often media may cite them. The ratings aren't facts, and should only be included when a specific rating causes a notable event or effect. If the SPLC itself bases its ratings on objective and reliable sources, then obviously those are what should be included in Wikipedia, not the opinion of an obviously self-interested group. Because the SPLC clearly has an enormous financial interest in identifying "hate groups", given that the purported continuing existence of such groups is both their raison d'être and fundraising pitch. Elle Kpyros (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

SPLC is notable. NRA is notable. We do mention the NRA, as we mention many political affiliations and approvals / admonishments by such notable lobby groups. Sometimes just being well known enough about a given thing is enough to warrant inclusion when discussing that thing when it is relevant. Just as a person or group being supportive or critical of the NRA, or the NRA being supportive or critical of a politician (or group) the SPLC may also be relevant.

Meanwhile objections to the SPLC because it's in their best interest to keep pointing at Nazi's is a disingenuous argument. It's like "yeah, I know they keep pointing out the extremists but they are only doing it so we keep paying them to point out more extremists" as if pointing out too much extremism is a problem. Koncorde (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wrong forum This is not a MOS issue and I don't think the results of this RfC (which right now look like "No consensus") would overturn what is acceptable practice...evaluating the value of including SPLC information on a case-by-case basis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• No but the question is poorly worded, and this is not really the best venue either. Extremely little is automatically lead worthy so as an answer to that narrow question expect to hear no regardless of what follows most of the time. More broadly, lead follows body, and it follows it proportionally. So if the body includes it, and it would be a proportionate representation then yes, otherwise no. First focus on the body then rework the lead, and remember to treat WP:LABELs as such. If the actually concern is over reliability then WP:RSN is thataway. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• No. I looked at List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups and noticed various groups that I consider to be respectable. What do you suppose it takes to get on or off a list like this? I may be a cynical guy and all, but I'm not the only one who thinks "hugely profitable scam." Colin Gerhard (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of turning this into a forum, I would perhaps suggest that you read the underlying reasoning for such respectable groups ending up on the list. Also, your feelings about such groups is largely irrelevant - not to suggest that you do - but I am sure a white supremacist would equally find nothing wrong with white supremacy organisations. So that is why we use objectively reliable sources to quantify what goes in the lede rather than the SPLC itself. While the SPLC isn't itself necessarily neutral, it is used, quoted, and references regularly across the reliable source spectrum.

Finally, The Daily Caller itself is not a reliable source as it has a very well established conflict of interest when it comes to the SPLC. It's inability to be neutral on such subjects (if not all subjects) is why it is not used as a source on Wikipedia which takes me back to the first sentence of my reply. Koncorde (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The page you linked to doesn't say that The Daily Caller can't be used as a source. It says that the site's use must be "attibuted." The reasons given are pretty goofy. TDC published an article that also was also published on a site that the SPLC claims is white supremacist. Another author is supposedly a white supremacist as well, but is not accused of having written anything inappropriate on TDC. It's a game of "six degrees of white supremacy." What prompted my original comment was not the racial issue, but rather that the SPLC seems to list a lot of groups that are critical of jihad. Colin Gerhard (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how deprecation works. The page says it can be used as a source for itself - but it must be attributed in any and all situations (I.e. only for it's opinion is it reliable) but with particular reference to Politics. On any other subject it is deprecated as a result of its blatant misrepresentation of facts across a myriad of topics.

And if you read the underlying reasons for the inclusion of such anti-jihad groups, then I am sure that they would reveal some reasonable concerns i.e. that they are less opposing Jihad, and more just opposing Muslims in general (or links to other groups such as White Nationalists, as they are often so inclined).

In conclusion. You oppose Jihad, therefore you inherently think those groups that oppose Jihad are good, but the SPLC has identified obvious issues with how such respectable groups conduct themselves, so it might be worth reading up on why rather than reaching for The Daily Caller. If other reliable sources talk about such groups and they become.notable enough to have their own wiki article then the SPLC rating will likely end up featured at some point. Whether it is in the lede or not is why this discussion existed. Koncorde (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wrong venue / wrong question, as already stated by others. But generally yes, although not automatically. SPLC's opinion should generally be attributed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, but wrong venue. They are the experts, so they would generally be leadworthy as a source for content worthy of the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Should not be in the lead, but should be in the article, with attribution. While I agree this isn't the ideal venue, WP:Consensus can form anywhere with sufficient (and sufficiently diverse) input. Here, we have enough of an editorial quorum, in a still-ongoing discussion to arrive at a consensus. Honestly, WP:RSN isn't actually ideal, either, because very little gets resolved there, unless it gets an RfC tag put on it, which is going to result in the same kind of good mix of editorial input we're already getting. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Once something is an RfC, venue doesn't matter much, unless the RfC is held in a totally viewpoint-stacked location (e.g. a wikiproject talk page when what the wikiproject is up to is the subject of the RfC).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Often the lead is appropriate as well, notable criticism, and sometimes the most notable aspect of a group is that they’re a hate group. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

    Reliable independent sources in the aggregate are what tell us that. SPLC doesn't determine this on its own. And it doesn't qualify as an independent source in the first place. Like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and several other groups, it is explicitly an activism organization, and is the self-declared outright enemy of groups it puts such labels on. We can't cite Party A in a dispute between Party A and Party B, as a source of neutral facts about Party B. We can, however, cite the The Times of London, The New York Times, reputable books by publishers like Oxford U. Pr. and Chicago U. Pr., and so on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• No, not automatically, per SMcCandlish and Gleeanon409, though maybe not often, so much as sometimes, when sufficiently notable. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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

FYI: Pronunciations in leads

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

Request for Comment about descriptions of reputation in the ledes of articles about colleges and universities

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

Deprecate foreign character warning boxes?

Discussion

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

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

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

Wow, that's a lot of info. You do have a point in that there's still potential benefit for the recently added, more obscure scripts. Maybe bringing the older boxes to TfD, while continuing to allow the rest, would be the simplest solution. Using hatnotes would just move the clutter to top of the page, which IMO would probably be worse, since such uses directly contradict WP:HAT. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've nominated the templates for scripts up to Unicode 3.2, except the ones with further comments below, for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 17#Foreign character warning boxes. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC) The so-called "basic" Vietnamese chu nom character, translated as "person", shows up as a box on my screen. -anonymous|2020.5.28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:1C05:1381:67CC:5940 (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

List of warning boxes

List of all existing and some deleted warning boxes, with corresponding Unicode versions and links to script articles — 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Template See whether your system supports this script Unicode version TfD Comments {{Contains Arabic text}} Arabic script 1.0 2019 July 26 {{Contains Urdu text}} Urdu alphabet#Alphabet 1.0 N/A Some Arabic letters for these languages (not sure which ones) have been added to Arabic Extended-A as recently as Unicode version 13.0 and remain poorly supported. {{Contains Perso-Arabic text}} Persian alphabet#Letters N/A {{Contains Uyghur text}} Uyghur Arabic alphabet N/A {{Contains Pashto text}} Pashto alphabet#Letters N/A {{Contains Sindhi text}} Sindhi language#Perso-Arabic script N/A {{Contains Baluchi text}} Balochi language#Writing system N/A {{Contains Ottoman Turkish text}} Ottoman Turkish alphabet#Alphabet N/A {{Contains Hindko text}} Hindko#Literature N/A {{Contains Saraiki text}} Saraiki alphabet#Arabic script N/A {{Contains Armenian text}} Armenian script#Alphabet 1.0 N/A {{Contains Bengali text}} Bengali alphabet#Sample texts 1.0 N/A {{Contains Chinese text}} Chinese characters 1.0.1 2017 November 7 Obscure characters (e.g. CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C and newer) may be poorly supported Bopomofo 1.0 {{Contains Cyrillic text}} Cyrillic script 1.0 2019 July 27 {{Contains Indic text}} Devanagari 1.0 N/A Gujarati script#Conjuncts 1.0 Gurmukhi script#Alphabet 1.0 Kannada script 1.0 Malayalam script 1.0 Oriya script 1.0 Telugu script 1.0 {{Contains Georgian text}} Georgian script 1.0 N/A {{Contains Coptic text}} Coptic script 1.0 N/A Greek and Coptic are in the same Unicode block, though it seems we've never had a {{Contains Greek text}} {{Contains Korean text}} Hangul, Hanja 2.0 2017 November 18 Additional historical hangul added in 5.2; obscure characters (e.g. CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C and newer) may be poorly supported {{Contains Hebrew text}} Hebrew script 1.0 N/A {{Contains Japanese text}} Kanji, Katakana, Hiragana 1.0.1 2017 November 18 Obscure characters (e.g. CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C and newer) may be poorly supported {{Contains Lao text}} Lao alphabet 1.0 N/A {{Contains Tamil text}} Tamil script 1.0 N/A {{Contains Thai text}} Thai script 1.0 N/A {{Contains Tibetan text}} Tibetan script 2.0 N/A {{Contains Indic text}} was used prior to June 2010 {{Contains Vietnamese text}} Vietnamese alphabet (Latin) 1.0 2011 August 22 Survived TfD with caveat that it should be used only for articles with Chinese characters. See also entry for #Contains Nom text below. {{Contains Braille characters}} Braille Patterns 3.0 N/A {{Contains Burmese text}} Burmese script 3.0 N/A Issues with shaping remain common even on modern systems {{Contains Canadian text}} Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics 3.0 N/A {{Contains Cherokee text}} Cherokee script 3.0 N/A {{Contains Ethiopic text}} Ethiopic script 3.0 N/A {{Contains Khmer text}} Khmer script 3.0 N/A {{Contains Manchu text}} Manchu alphabet 3.0 N/A Probably the most poorly-supported of the scripts added in 3.0 {{Contains Mongolian text}} Mongolian script 3.0 N/A Probably the most poorly-supported of the scripts added in 3.0 {{Contains Ogham text}} Ogham script 3.0 N/A {{Contains Runic text}} Runes 3.0 N/A {{Contains Syriac text}} Syriac script 3.0 N/A {{Contains Deseret text}} Deseret script 3.1 N/A {{Contains Gothic text}} Gothic (Unicode block) 3.1 N/A {{Contains Nom text}} Chữ Nôm (obsolete Vietnamese CJK characters) 3.1 N/A Basic Vietnamese-only characters (e.g. 𠊛 meaning "person") were added in CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B, Unicode 3.1. CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C and newer) may be poorly supported. Unlike for Chinese/Japanese/Korean, some of those characters are quite common in the context of chu nom, but chu nom itself is only used sporadically throughout Wikipedia. {{Contains Baybayin text}} Baybayin 3.2 N/A {{Contains Shavian text}} Shavian alphabet#Unicode 4.0 N/A {{Contains Lontara script}} Lontara script#Unicode 4.1 N/A Relevant Unicode block is called Buginese (Unicode block) {{Contains Glagolitic text}} Glagolitic script#Unicode 4.1 N/A {{Contains Old Persian text}} Old Persian cuneiform#Unicode 4.1 N/A {{Contains Tifinagh text}} Tifinagh#Unicode 4.1 N/A {{Contains Balinese script}} Balinese script#Unicode 5.0 N/A {{Contains cuneiform text}} List of cuneiform signs 5.0 N/A {{Contains Karen text}} Karen alphabet 5.1 N/A Karen is written with the Burmese script; support for some Karen-specific characters was not added until 5.1. See Myanmar (Unicode block). {{Contains Sundanese script}} Sundanese script#Unicode 5.1 N/A {{Contains Egyptian hieroglyphic text}} Egyptian Hieroglyphs (Unicode block) 5.2 N/A {{Contains Javanese script}} Javanese script#Unicode 5.2 N/A {{Contains emoticon}} Emoticons#Unicode 6.0 N/A {{Contains Old Hungarian text}} Old Hungarian script#Unicode 8.0 N/A {{Contains SignWriting script}} SignWriting#Unicode 8.0 N/A {{Contains Tangut text}} Tangut script#Unicode 9.0 N/A {{Contains Khoekhoe text}} Click letter ? N/A Relevant letters are in Latin Extended-B (Unicode block), but I'm not sure when they were added {{Contains Hokkien text}} Taiwanese kana#Syllable chart ? N/A Katakana (Unicode block) has been available ever since Unicode 1.0, but this script uses them along with U+305 "COMBINING OVERLINE" and U+323 "COMBINING DOT BELOW", which seems to be poorly supported. Taiwanese Phonetic Symbols#Etymology 3.0 Bopomofo (Unicode block) lacks Hokkien-specific letters, later added in Bopomofo Extended Written Hokkien#Chinese characters 5.2? Some basic Hokkien-specific CJK characters (e.g. 𪜶, "they") were only added in CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C, which is why I marked this as "5.2"

Words with multiple pronunciations?

There is currently a dicussion at Talk:Router (computing)#RFC about whether and how to mention alternate pronunciations of router. MOS:LEADPRON does not give any guidance on whether the fact of alternate pronunciation is by itself a legitimate reason for mentioning the pronunciation of a common English word. I don't believe that this is an isolated instance, and some guidance would be helpful. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Single quotes for simple glosses

On this page at MOS:LEADLANG the example given is:

The Inuit (plural; pronounced /ˈɪnjuɪt/; Inuktitut: ᐃᓄᐃᑦ, "the people")

but at MOS:SINGLE the guidance says "Simple glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms usually take single quotes". The example should therefore be:

The Inuit (plural; pronounced /ˈɪnjuɪt/; Inuktitut: ᐃᓄᐃᑦ, 'the people')

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google omitting parentheses from lead sentences

Have noticed some editors removing parentheses from lead sentences with the rationale that this is more useful for users of search engines like Google or Alexa, which often omit the bracketed text. Is this something that should be borne in mind when writing a good opening sentence, or if not, can it teach us anything? I can see it might be helpful for the common names of plants, where the article title is the Latin name, and an unbracketed lead sentence won't mention any common names. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

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

LEADALT and significance

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

For example:

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

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

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

A fumbedumble (US), also called dumblefumble, formerly called dumbledumble and called fumblefumble in the UK (from the Elamite 𒈗𒁕𒇻 f^umbl "fumble" and Coptic ⲡ︤ϩ︦ⲣ︦ⲃ︥ dhwmmbble "dumble") is a fumble that is also a dumble.

one should write

A fumbledumble is a fumble that is also a dumble. The concept is called fumblefumble in the UK, and may also be called dumblefumble or (formerly) dumbledumble. The name comes from Elamite 𒈗𒁕𒇻 f^umbl "fumble" and Coptic ⲡ︤ϩ︦ⲣ︦ⲃ︥ dhwmmbble "dumble".

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOS:BOLDAVOID and MOS:AVOIDBOLD

It seems very confusing that the shortcuts MOS:BOLDAVOID and MOS:AVOIDBOLD are in separate but adjacent boxes. Why was it done this way? Is it the case that it can't be fixed because it would break links in edit summaries? --Jameboy (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The way I look at it, the point of the two links is not so much to clearly delineate the rules, it's so that it's possible to post a direct link to those specific subsections. Yes, they're easily confused, because those rules are easily confused — not to mention, frequently conflated so that it's rare one of them applies without the other having at least some relevance as well. If you find yourself needing to link/reference one of them but can't remember which tag goes to which (I know I never can), just use MOS:BOLD. It points to the entire section containing both. so it's valid in either case. You can't go wrong there. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jameboy: My mistake (and apologies for not pinging you in my first reply anyway), MOS:BOLD of course does not actually go anywhere near either MOS:BOLDAVOID or MOS:AVOIDBOLD, it's the link for the instructions regarding basic WikiText styling using '''. (Hey, I acknowledged from the start that the names are indeed all confusing!) MOS:BOLDLEAD (or its synonym MOS:BOLDTITLE) are the larger-topic shortcuts I should've been referencing. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Corporations - bold "Inc." on first mention?

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

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

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

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

Terrible use of post-nominals template

I've noticed that people have started polluting biographies of many scientists who were members of different societies by adding acronyms of the institutions and fellowships right after the scientist's name. If the pronunciation of the name was given, the acronyms would be between the name and the pronunciation. So we have in Andre Geim "Sir Andre Konstantinovich Geim FRS, HonFRSC, HonFInstP (Russian: Андре́й Константи́нович Гейм; born 21 October 1958) is a Russian-born...", and on google "Sir Andre Konstantinovich Geim FRS, HonFRSC, HonFInstP is a Russian-born...". For James Dyson it gets even worse: "Sir James Dyson OM CBE RDI FRS FREng FCSD FIEE (born 2 May 1947)...". Do these acronyms mean anything to anyone, or do you need to click on them to find out what they mean? This is a terrible use of the template, and should be banned and reverted en masse. The template is now in many biographies of the members of the Royal Society (Fellow of the Royal Society), and who knows where else. It's amazing what people will use just because they can. What if a person has 30 fellowships, are they all going to be listed? This, to me, is nothing but sophisticated WP:REFSPAM. Ponor (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

The MOS page that covers this is actually Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. It currently states (under MOS:POSTNOM), "Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article... but should be omitted from the lead." --Paul_012 (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

You continue to be mistaken. Membership in CSD or IET (the newer initials of IEE) would probably not be worth mentioning anywhere in the article. Fellowship, on the other hand, is (for many but not all societies) a select honor reserved only for members with the highest levels of accomplishment, enough that we consider it an automatic criterion for notability (WP:PROF#C3). The fellowships you mention, in CSD and IET, look to my investigation to be honors of this type. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Help?

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

RfC: MOS:LEADSENTENCE in "History of X" articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• History of the Wales national football team (1876–1976)
• History of Gillingham F.C.
• History of the British farthing
• History of Baltimore City College
• History of saffron
• History of biology
• History of aluminum
• History of American football
• History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966)
• History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present)
• History of Bradford City A.F.C.
• History of Chincoteague, Virginia
• History of evolutionary thought
• History of Gibraltar
• History of Gillingham F.C.
• History of Ipswich Town F.C.
• History of Lithuania (1219–95)
• History of Mars observation
• History of Minnesota
• History of Norwich City F.C.
• History of Poland (1945–1989)
• History of Sesame Street
• History of Sheffield
• History of Solidarity
• History of Stoke City F.C.
• History of Texas A&M University
• History of the Australian Capital Territory
• History of the British penny (1714–1901)
• History of the British penny (1901–1970)
• History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II
• History of the Montreal Canadiens
• History of the Nashville Sounds
• History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942)
• History of the National Hockey League (1942–1967)
• History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992)
• History of the New York Jets
• History of the New York Yankees
• History of the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Army
• History of the Yosemite area
• History of timekeeping devices
• History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C.
• History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950
• History of York City F.C. (1908–1980)
• History of York City F.C. (1980–present)

The fact that these articles have a variety of styles for the opening sentences and are all WP:FA suggests that there is no need for any sort of clarification or advice needed and that "randomly settling on some of the options above" is perfectly acceptable. If there is any issue in any article (for example, if the lead sentence in a hypothetical "History of ballpoint pens" article began with "Ballpoint pens have history."), then editors can WP:BRD and come to a consensus on the talk page.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of the lead section in article translation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3O Response: I don't think this is worth adding here. Less is more. It already says what style to use, i.e., clear, accessible, etc. Adding the sentence about being translated doesn't really strengthen that guidance. Just because it is more likely to get translated doesn't make the policy more important. It's already important and should be done for its own sake. In contrast if you were to suggest that because it is likely to be translated you should avoid idiosyncratic regional vernacular idioms or some such, then that might make sense. As written, this sentence perhaps adds a little weight, but not much. If someone doesn't know enough to make a lead clear, accessible, etc., then telling them it might be more likely to get translated won't tip the balance and convince them to take the guidance more seriously. Since it doesn't add much, leave it out. Less is more. Coastside (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Single-sentence "paragraphs"

Recently I have increasingly noticed articles which begin with a single-sentence "paragraph", and I have noticed editors specifically separating out the opening sentence from the rest of the paragraph (eg this). I think this is really poor style, and nothing in the current MOS supports it. Indeed, MOS:PARA says "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text", while WP:PARAGRAPH says "One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly." Should some text be added to MOS:BEGIN to address this? I'd suggest something like:

The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states that the list covers "harmful aspects of human activity on the biophysical environment". The first paragraph should indeed be a paragraph; do not start an article with an isolated sentence.

46.208.152.69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

MOS:PARAGRAPHS discourages single-sentence paragraphs. And that's what I point to when arguing against single-sentence paragraphs. But using them is sometimes unavoidable. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the original post that single-sentence lead paragraphs are a common issue that are worth addressing. I agree with the second post that discouraging, and perhaps strongly discouraging, is preferable to a prohibition. Perhaps something like the following, linking to MOS:PARA would work:

The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states that the list covers "harmful aspects of human activity on the biophysical environment". The first paragraph should indeed be a paragraph, as single-sentence lead paragraphs are discouraged.

Discussion at Module talk:Lang-zh § MOS compliance

 You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:Lang-zh § MOS compliance. — Goszei (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I posted this back in May and it was abandoned, so I thought I would post it here to get some fresh eyes on it.