Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by 103.151.0.36 (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot III
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 23) (bot
 
Line 4: Line 4:
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 21
|counter = 23
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 15: Line 15:
|indexhere=yes
|indexhere=yes
}}
}}
== Footnotes in the boldface? ==
== LEADLANG clarification ==


I noticed something in [[MOS:LEADLANG]] that could do with some clarification.
Is there a MoS line on whether to include footnotes within the bold section of the first sentence? The [[Gangulphus]] article opens with "'''Saint Gangulphus'''<sup>[1]</sup> '''of Burgundy''' is venerated as..." (the footnote offering other spellings of his name), which feels similar to [[MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD]], but I can't see that it's covered here. --[[User:Lord Belbury|Lord Belbury]] ([[User talk:Lord Belbury|talk]]) 15:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
: That seems preferable to the alternative of cluttering the first sentence by listing out all name variants in the first sentence of text. [[User:CUA 27|CUA 27]] ([[User talk:CUA 27|talk]]) 19:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
:: Definitely. Would seem better to put the footnote after "of Burgundy", or after the next mention of "Gangulphus" in the text, to me, I was just wondering if the style guide had a take on it. --[[User:Lord Belbury|Lord Belbury]] ([[User talk:Lord Belbury|talk]]) 08:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


#If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name may be included in the lead sentence.
== Articles stating with 'In [[physics]]', for example ==
#Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names, as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability.
#Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology.
#Foreign-language names should be moved to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence.
#Separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas....


While point one to four complement each other, point 5 seems to be open to interpretation: why mention "separate languages" if we're only supposed to include "a single foreign language" in the lead sentence? When dealing with multiple languages, do we keep the single foreign language equivalent that is closely associated with the subject and move the others to a footnote or do we move all of them to a footnote? Thanks. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 16:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I am trying to follow the standard of:


: Here is an example of a lead that is well done and conforms with the guidance. There is a "single foreign language" plus the English language, with a semicolon between the two "separate languages".
If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence
: '''Geneva''' ({{IPAc-en|dʒ|ə|ˈ|n|iː|v|ə}} {{respell|jə|NEE|və}};<ref name="oxford">{{Cite encyclopedia |url=http://www.lexico.com/definition/Geneva |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200322182017/https://www.lexico.com/definition/geneva |url-status=dead |archive-date=2020-03-22 |title=Geneva |dictionary=[[Lexico]] UK English Dictionary |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]}}</ref> {{lang-fr|Genève}} {{IPA-fr|ʒənɛv||LL-Q150 (fra)-Fhala.K-Genève.wav}})<ref group="note">{{lang-frp|Geneva}} {{IPA-frp|dzəˈn(ɛ)va||Frp-greverin-Dzenèva.ogg}}; {{lang-de|link=no|Genf}} {{IPA-de|ɡɛnf||de-Genf.ogg}}; {{lang-it|Ginevra}} {{IPA-it|dʒiˈneːvra|}}; {{lang-rm|Genevra}}</ref> is the [[List of cities in Switzerland|second-most populous]] city in [[Switzerland]] (after [[Zürich]]) and the most populous of the French-speaking [[Romandy]].
{{reflist-talk}}
: Does that help answer your first question? [[User:CUA 27|CUA 27]] ([[User talk:CUA 27|talk]]) 14:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. This confirms what I always understood it to mean, i.e., keep the single foreign language equivalent that is closely associated with the subject in the lead sentence and move the others to a footnote; however, I'm not convinced that everyone will interpret it the same way (given the cited Genghis Khan example). Clarifying this, maybe with the Geneva example, would remove any possible misinterpretation of the recommendations. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 16:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
:I think the wording could be more clear, but also feel it would be unnecessary to have it be a {{em|firmer}} wording as such. Depending on context, There are other factors, mainly the length of alternative names, where one could squeeze in two names and have it be an equally elegant solution (footnotes aren't zero-cost in a layout, even if they're usually near-zero).
:Tell me if I'm wrong, but Chinese is nearly the worst-case scenario for this: both script and romanization are always necessary, it is often preferred to include both simplified and traditional forms, there are often multiple relevant romanizations... all for text that a supermajority of our audience cannot read and will likely find a teensy net negative for their reading experience, much as I love looking at [[Chinese characters]] all day. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 05:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} <small>pinging those who edited the article recently.</small>{{re|Schierbecker|HansVonStuttgart|SMcCandlish|Anachronist|Thinker78|Moxy|Loytra|MicrobiologyMarcus}} your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Best, [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 16:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


:I usually put everything in the note.... simply to make the first sentence as legible as possible.....but using the example above in the info box. If our readers have to read a sentence multiple times for a meaning behind it.... chances are we've lost that reader. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 16:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I am editing mathematical articles such as S-Matrix and placing the article title before the referenced article where possible; isn’t this what I should be doing? [[User:UniversalHumanTransendence|UniversalHumanTransendence]] ([[User talk:UniversalHumanTransendence|talk]]) 07:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
::I was pinged, but the only edit I've made to the article was a minor grammar improvement. I'm in favor of putting it all in the note. I find IPA rather useless and cluttery, actually, and I would be happiest if those were relegated to footnotes, but the community here seems enamored with including IPA in lead sentences wherever possible. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
:UHT seems to take the view that the name of the article ought to be the first word of the first sentence, and that any prepositional phrase must be placed after it. See changes like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Root&type=revision&diff=1036218908&oldid=1027509771 this] at [[Root]] for an example, there are many more such changes. I see this as an extreme reading of 'as early in the sentence as possible' and believe it makes for some awkward constructions. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 07:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
:::So, I am not the only one who doesn't like the IPA clutter. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 18:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
:::: I share your views. Put it all in a note. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 18:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::No, please! IPA is useful for rare/foreign words and many names. Anyway, that wasn't the question in the first place, was it? [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 18:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::You're right, the question was about how to deal with multiple languages. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 00:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I also support having foreign language names condensed into footnotes if there's more than one language or if the names are super long. I've seen so many articles in which the lead sentence takes up nearly a paragraph-worth of space simply because of the translations. However, I also think it's important that these footnotes use the 'Note' group rather than the 'lower-alpha' group, as the former creates larger in-line footnotes that are easier to spot for those searching for foreign language names. [[User:Loytra|Loytra]] ([[User talk:Loytra|talk]]) 05:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:Point 5 exists because point 4 exists. That is, if all this language information is included, it should be in a footnote per no. 4; and no. 5 says how to format it. It's not logically possible for point 5 to be a "magical override" that means to include all this information in the lead text, formatted per no. 5, or 1-4 simply would not exist. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 23:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


== [[MOS:LEADPRON]] suggested revisions ==
Any prepositional phrase should be placed after if possible. Not must. [[User:UniversalHumanTransendence|UniversalHumanTransendence]] ([[User talk:UniversalHumanTransendence|talk]]) 07:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


=== [[MOS:LEADPRON]] suggested revision #1 ===
Also, placing the title first makes it easier for others to expand on it in such ways as, for example, to elaborate on the root of the word.


I propose we change this:
Please see:
: "Do not include pronunciations for names of foreign countries whose pronunciations are well known in English (France, Poland)."


to this:
Mathematics (from Greek: μάθημα, máthēma, 'knowledge, study, learning') [[User:UniversalHumanTransendence|UniversalHumanTransendence]] ([[User talk:UniversalHumanTransendence|talk]]) 08:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
: "Do not include in the text of the lead sentence pronunciations for names of foreign locations whose pronunciations are well known in English (e.g., Poland, Paris)."


The logic is clear — if the "pronunciations are well known", then no pronunciation guide is needed. I don't see any good reason to limit this sound guidance to countries.
For example we don’t start that article as:


In language, mathematics is… [[User:UniversalHumanTransendence|UniversalHumanTransendence]] ([[User talk:UniversalHumanTransendence|talk]]) 08:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
[[User:CUA 27|CUA 27]] ([[User talk:CUA 27|talk]]) 00:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:There isn't a need to on that case - mathematics isn't a branch of linguistics. Certainly not all first sentences need any kind of prepositional phrase, and I have no problem with someone judiciously removing them when they aren't necessary. What I object to is someone coming along and moving them en masse, so that we end up with lots of little parenthetical prepositional phrases getting in between the subject and the verb. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 08:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


:Hmm, I'm a bit sceptical – currently the French pronunciation of [[Paris]] is given in an explanatory note, which is absolutely fine. We shouldn't give the impression that mentioning it is forbidden altogether. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 06:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Then those prepositional phrases should probably be moved further down in the article, eventually, with the help of the wiki community, and expansions on more solid definitions of the article topic can be more easily developed. [[User:UniversalHumanTransendence|UniversalHumanTransendence]] ([[User talk:UniversalHumanTransendence|talk]]) 08:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
:Let's give others some time to review what you have been doing, and comment on whether they feel it was an improvement. I do not, but maybe others will. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 08:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


Expanding on the root of the word is much easier if you open with the word as opposed to having it mid sentence; for example giving the Greek form of the word. This is an improvement. [[User:UniversalHumanTransendence|UniversalHumanTransendence]] ([[User talk:UniversalHumanTransendence|talk]]) 08:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
:: Thanks, I’ve revised by adding “in the text of the lead sentence” to address your point. Pronunciation guides are fine, but not when they unnecessarily clutter the lead sentence. [[User:CUA 27|CUA 27]] ([[User talk:CUA 27|talk]]) 11:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


=== [[MOS:LEADPRON]] suggested revision #2 ===
For example having the root of the word available, such as Set (/sɛt/; Egyptological: Sutekh - swtẖ ~ stẖ[a] or Greek: Seth /sɛθ/) helps people understand the word and the article. It also helps things like Google find priority topics more easily. [[User:UniversalHumanTransendence|UniversalHumanTransendence]] ([[User talk:UniversalHumanTransendence|talk]]) 08:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


I propose adding the green text:
:{{ping|UniversalHumanTransendence}} I agree with {{u|Girth Summit}} that many of your edits (maybe all) on articles' initial sentences weren't improvements. I prefer to start with a context (e.g. "In physics,"), then name the articles' subject (e.g. "an S-matrix"), and then give its definition ("... relates the ..."). this way, the flow of thought needn't go from the subject back to its context, and then forward again to the subject's details. To my experience, most mathematics articles start following this scheme, indicating that a majority of editors like it, too. More generally, typesetting the subject in boldface wasn't necessary if it always should appear at the very beginning of the lead. And if you edit sentences, you should try to keep them grammatically correct; the subject of a sentence usually requires an article (or something similar) before it. BTW: it is not a purpose of Wikipedia to help Google. - [[User:Jochen Burghardt|Jochen Burghardt]] ([[User talk:Jochen Burghardt|talk]]) 15:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


: "It is preferable to move pronunciation guides to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they {{xt|are lengthy or}} would otherwise clutter the first sentence.[O] {{xt|Do not include pronunciation guides in the text of the lead sentence for foreign translations of the article title, as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability.}}"
So you’re saying context should precede the article title if possible? Does this mean the article Ra should start with:


With these changes, the following unreadable first sentence:
A diety, Ra
: São Tomé and Príncipe (/ˌsaʊ təˈmeɪ ... ˈprɪnsɪpə, -peɪ/ ⓘ SOW tə-MAY ... PRIN-sih-pə, -⁠pay;[9] Portuguese: São Tomé e Príncipe (Portuguese pronunciation: [sɐ̃w tuˈmɛ i ˈpɾĩsɨpɨ]); English: "Saint Thomas and Prince") ... is an island country in the Gulf of Guinea, off the western equatorial coast of Central Africa.
becomes much more readable, with no information lost:
: São Tomé and Príncipe{{efn|(/ˌsaʊ təˈmeɪ ... ˈprɪnsɪpə, -peɪ/ ⓘ SOW tə-MAY ... PRIN-sih-pə, -⁠pay;[9] Portuguese: São Tomé e Príncipe (Portuguese pronunciation: [sɐ̃w tuˈmɛ i ˈpɾĩsɨpɨ])}} (English: "Saint Thomas and Prince") ... is an island country in the Gulf of Guinea, off the western equatorial coast of Central Africa.


And link to diety? [[User:UniversalHumanTransendence|UniversalHumanTransendence]] ([[User talk:UniversalHumanTransendence|talk]]) 15:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
[[User:CUA 27|CUA 27]] ([[User talk:CUA 27|talk]]) 00:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:No - that's not a context, that's part of the definition that the rest of the sentence would deal with. You might choose to write 'In Egyptian mythology, Ra...', that would be a choice you make depending on whether or not you feel the subject requires context for the reader to understand it. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 16:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


Exactly. I do not believe in Egyptian mythology, is required to give context just as in mathematics is not required to give context when on the Set (mathematics) page. [[User:UniversalHumanTransendence|UniversalHumanTransendence]] ([[User talk:UniversalHumanTransendence|talk]]) 16:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
:The proposed new sentence sounds fine to me. I don't think the insertion "are lengthy" is necessary, since "clutter" already implies it. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 06:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


== Notes ==
I do not believe 'in Egyptian mythology' is required before Ra; just as 'in mathematics' is not required before Set. If those were place in front, it would distract you from the article and redirect you elsewhere before you have even begun to read the definition. [[User:UniversalHumanTransendence|UniversalHumanTransendence]] ([[User talk:UniversalHumanTransendence|talk]]) 16:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


Hey, does [[MOS:LEADCITE]] apply to notes which are linked to the lead only, example [[Horizon Forbidden West]]. Thanks, [[User:Indagate|Indagate]] ([[User talk:Indagate|talk]]) 08:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with Jochen Burghardt and Girth Summit that the formula "In <field>, a <term> is ..." is a good way to start an article. It immediately tells the reader the context, so we have "In agriculture, a '''field''' is...", "In mathematics, a '''field''' is...". The ''in'' phrase is context for the rest of the sentence and indeed the rest of the article.
:This formulation is widely used and stable on Wikipedia, and so far, no one has come to support your position. So I suggest you [[WP:DTS|stop beating a dead horse]]. There's no reason in making [[WP:WALLS|extended arguments]]; you've made your point and haven't succeeded in convincing others. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 17:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


:Not sure if I got your question right, but LEADCITE only states that facts that are referenced in the article body can appear in the lead without needing to repeat the reference there. If something appears ''only'' in the lead, then it must be referenced just as if it appeared anywhere else. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 08:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Well then we should add In Egyptian Mythology, to the beginning of the article Ra. [[User:UniversalHumanTransendence|UniversalHumanTransendence]] ([[User talk:UniversalHumanTransendence|talk]]) 19:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks for responding, my question is about information that's included in a efn note and the note is only used in the lead, can the note be covered by LEADCITE or should be it be cited? See the note at the top of the infobox at [[Horizon Forbidden West]] and recent edit history. [[User:Indagate|Indagate]] ([[User talk:Indagate|talk]]) 15:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
:::The article text has a citation for a version of the claim at the bottom of the "Release" section: {{tq|[[Nixxes Software]] then [[porting|ported]] the Complete Edition to Windows on 21 March 2024.<ref name="complete">{{cite web|url=https://www.ign.com/articles/horizon-forbidden-west-complete-edition-pc-requirements-revealed|title=Horizon Forbidden West Complete Edition PC Requirements Revealed|first=Taylor|last=Lyles|work=[[IGN]]|date=21 March 2024|accessdate=6 April 2024|archive-date=20 March 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240320130340/https://www.ign.com/articles/horizon-forbidden-west-complete-edition-pc-requirements-revealed|url-status=live}}</ref>}} That claim may need to be qualified, but that does not mean that a citation is needed in the infobox.
:::{{talk-ref}} [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 20:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


== LEADCITE and responding to challenges over material in the lead ==
:If there were multiple common(!) subjects named ''Ra'', with unrelated meanings, then I would probably agree with you. The example from @[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] of the many common(!) meanings of ''field'' is a good one. One wouldn't wish for someone to begin reading "a '''field''' is a [[Set (mathematics)|set]] on which [[addition]], [[subtraction]], [[multiplication]], and [[Division (mathematics)|division]] are defined" and wonder whether the page will later describe a place where farmers grow food, or the place where a sporting event takes place, or a way to indicate various subjects of academic study.
:However, in the case of Ra, it isn't necessary or helpful to pre-specify that this is the page about Egyptian mythology, because there aren't multiple common(!) subjects under the same name. Either you're looking for the article about this Ra, or you're looking for an uncommon subject. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


I've frequently seen people respond to challenges over material in the lead of an article solely by pointing to LEADCITE, without indicating what citations in the body they feel support the statements in question. I don't think this is acceptable; [[WP:V]] is non-negotiable and is vastly more important than keeping an uncluttered lead, which means that every statement in an article, including the lead, must have citations ''somewhere'' in the article, and per [[WP:BURDEN]], someone who wishes to retain them must actually be able to produce the citations in question - vaguely waving a hand at the entire article and implying that they exist is insufficient (and makes verification incredibly difficult.) When text is challenged you must actually be able to produce the specific citations that support it. I suggest adding a bit to LEADCITE along the lines of {{tq|Citations for challenged material can be omitted from the lead of an article ''only'' when the relevant citations exist in the body; therefore, when responding to a challenge over text in the lead of an article, [[WP:BURDEN]] requires that you clearly indicate, in your edit summary or on talk, which specific citations already in the article support the text in question. Because [[WP:V]] is core policy, an article-specific consensus to omit citations from the lead of an article cannot overcome this requirement.}} --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 22:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021 ==


:[[MOS:LEADCITE]] already says that only "redundant citations in the lead" may be omitted, and that "complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations", even in the lead. Otherwise I don't think your addition would be all that helpful since it's unclear who the "you" is that it addresses. You can just point out to your interlocutors that unsourced material may be challenged and removed, and that LEADCITE doesn't change that. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 06:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|answered=yes}}
"Change Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to Ahmadiyya Community". Ahmadiyya Community is not a Muslim community they are non-Muslims. [[Special:Contributions/2400:ADC5:181:6C00:314B:A01B:CFEA:DB2B|2400:ADC5:181:6C00:314B:A01B:CFEA:DB2B]] ([[User talk:2400:ADC5:181:6C00:314B:A01B:CFEA:DB2B|talk]]) 19:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
: [[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Place this request on the talk page of the article you want to have the change in. You have accidentally posted it to the MOS talk page [[User:RudolfRed|RudolfRed]] ([[User talk:RudolfRed|talk]]) 19:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


== Bolding alternate titles ==
== EDITED Lead Page ==


Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I have revised the lead page by summarizing key points and mentioning important aspects and sections of the article itself. I noticed in this article how there was a short lead in the section, and missing depth in the information; as I have also read the conversations above. [[User:Emooshka11|Emooshka11]] ([[User talk:Emooshka11|talk]]) 04:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Question about [[MOS:BOLDSYN]]; is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doctor_Who_(series_13)&oldid=1049141012 this] a valid bolding? If we cannot bold the article's title in the first sentence of the lead, should we be bolding alternate titles that are not the article's actual title? In the case of a single bolding, that bolding should represent the article's primary title only; at least, that's always been my understanding. Let me know if this isn't necessarily correct, or if it is. Thanks. -- <span style="text-shadow:0 0 1px #8dd">''/[[User:Alex 21|<span style="color:#008">Alex</span>]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|<sub style="color:#008">21</sub>]]''</span> 12:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
: No, you just vandalized the page by replacing part of it with sociology content. I reverted your change. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 05:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:This situation actually isn't addressed in BOLDSYN, there's been at least one other article that comes to my mind ,where I've added this type of bolding, and there may be other cases out there. Whether the answer is yes or no it may be useful to address it. Thanks, [[User:TheDoctorWho Public|TheDoctorWho Public]] ([[User talk:TheDoctorWho Public|talk]]) 14:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
::I apologize, but I don't understand. The article stated the lead page needed revision as there was a short summary. How do I edit without vandalizing? I do not see what I have done wrong here, as I am simply confused. [[User:Emooshka11|Emooshka11]] ([[User talk:Emooshka11|talk]]) 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:Redirects would typically be bolded in the lead per [[MOS:BOLDREDIRECT]]. This case with ''Flux'' in not a redirect, but is linked [[Flux_(disambiguation)#Other_uses_in_art_and_entertainment|from a disambiguation page]]. I could swear there used to be some guidance about bolding terms from dabs as well, but maybe it was removed at some point.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 05:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
::With the above said it may be useful to note in this specific situation that ''[[Doctor Who: Flux]]'', the full alternate title, IS a redirect to the article, with just ''Flux'' being an abbreviated version of the alternate. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 05:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Emooshka11|Emooshka11]], you edited the [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style]] page to write about sociology. Look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section&diff=prev&oldid=1220501000 your edit] and compare it to the [[WP:MOS#Lead section|current page]]. Does that help you understand that you edited the wrong page? [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 19:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
::The guidance I was thinking of for bolding terms from disambiguation entires turns out tohave been specifically regarding nicknames in bios per [[MOS:NICKBOLD]]: {{tq|Common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead, especially if they redirect to the article, or are found on a disambiguation page or hatnote and link from those other names to the article.|q=yes}} One would think the spirit would apply to prominent alternative titles for non-bios, or that bios and non-bios should be consistent.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 09:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)


Hi [[User:Emooshka11|Emooshka11]]. I see that you are a student editor. This can all be very confusing for newbies here. I don't think you deliberately "vandalized" the page, but that was the effect. You deleted existing content and replaced it with a bunch of stuff about sociology. The [[WP:Manual of Style]] is not a Wikipedia article, but instructions for editors. It isn't about sociology. Maybe you accidentally copy-pasted the stuff in there? That can happen. You had just edited the [[History of sociology]] article, and maybe that stuff was on your [[Clipboard (computing)|clipboard]] and you accidentally left it here.
Per both MOS:BOLDSYN and MOS:BOLDREDIRECT that is valid, however it should use the full name Doctor Who: Flux and not a short name in its first use. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 07:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


You need to constantly click that "history" tab to see what you have done, whether the result is what you intended, and any reactions to what you did. People will respond and leave edit summaries there. Try it now. Open the "project page" tab and look at its "history". Click on any relevant links (they are called "[[Help:Diff|diffs]]" by editors). You will see your edit and my response. Then return here and respond to my comments here. I'll be happy to guide you through this. It's pretty overwhelming in the beginning. I have taught a college class about editing Wikipedia. During an assignment I gave the class, a group of girls got together and managed to use [[WP:Wikilinks]] to get far afield from what I intended. They got from the [[Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940)]], to [[engineering]], to the engineering involved in [[bra]] design. That involved [[breasts]], leading them to discover the huge amount of uncensored porn at Wikipedia. Their laughter alerted me to what was going on. We all got a good laugh.
:The "Doctor Who" prefix would be redundant in an article concerning "Doctor Who". -- <span style="text-shadow:0 0 1px #8dd">''/[[User:Alex 21|<span style="color:#008">Alex</span>]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|<sub style="color:#008">21</sub>]]''</span> 13:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
::I would like to bring attention back to my response on the discussion started about this on the articles talk page where I said that it may not be redundant in its first use. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 15:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


BTW, I have written an essay about "lead": [[WP:How to create and manage a good lead section|How to create and manage a good lead section]] (a how-to guide). An article's lead is a sensitive matter. Generally, no significant changes should be made to the lead unless there is a genuine need for it. That can occur when the body of the article has been enlarged or significantly changed. Changing a lead often requires quite a bit of knowledge about the whole article. Therefore, it's better to work on the body, rather than change the lead, at least while you are a newbie. Of course, minor copy edits to improve the grammar, spelling, and punctuation in the lead are always welcome. That doesn't change the lead's summary of the whole article. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 20:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
== Lede length ==


== Citizenship in the lede ==
Given the function of the lede as a short summary and the requirement that it be no longer than four paragraphs, I would argue that an article only 1-4 paragraphs long does not need a lede. Can that be made explicit in this guideline? [[User:Praemonitus|Praemonitus]] ([[User talk:Praemonitus|talk]]) 15:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

We are having a debate on [[Talk:Stevie Wonder#Citizenship]] over his newly acquired dual citizenship status. It doesn't seem as though there is a standard to go by on how to refer to a person with dual citizenship; for instance [[Tina Turner]] lived in Switzerland for many years, yet she was not referred to as "American-Swiss". Also, Tom Hanks is American-Greek and this is not reflected in the lede. The infoboxes of these articles do point out additional citizenships, and I made sure this was the case on [[Stevie Wonder]]. However, several editors insist that his dual citizenship status must be mentioned in the lede despite him being an American citizen for almost the entirety of his life. [[User:Dekema|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #003AC9;">dekema</span>]] (Formerly Buffaboy) ([[User talk:Buffaboy|talk]]) 05:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

== [[MOS:LEADLANG]] ==

Thoughts on adding the proposed sentence (shown below in bold so editors can readily see the change):

:Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names, as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability. Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology. <b>Do not include in the text of the lead foreign equivalents written in non-Roman script, as this is unhelpful to the non-specialist reader.</b> Foreign-language names should be moved to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence.{{efn-ua|name="Khan"}}

Some examples where non-Roman script provides clutter to all readers, but probably helps only a very tiny minority of readers:
* Districts ({{lang-si|දිස්ත්‍රි‌ක්‌ක|''Distrikka''}}, {{lang-ta|மாவட்டம்|''Māvaṭṭam''}}) are the second level [[Administrative division|administrative divisions]] of [[Sri Lanka]], preceded by [[Provinces of Sri Lanka|provinces]].
* The Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (also known as PIDE) ({{Nastaliq| ‏‎پاکستان دانشگاہِ ترقیاتی معاشیات}}) is a [[post-graduate]] research institute and a public policy [[think tank]] located in the vicinity of [[Islamabad]], [[Pakistan]].

These would be better as footnotes or moved elsewhere in the article, and not in the text of the lead. Thoughts? [[User:CUA 27|CUA 27]] ([[User talk:CUA 27|talk]]) 20:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Checking to see if anyone wants to weigh in? [[User:CUA 27|CUA 27]] ([[User talk:CUA 27|talk]]) 12:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

:I don't think this change is necessary. There is nothing wrong with having a fairly short expression in another script in the lead sentence. Excessive cases are to be avoided, but that's common sense and doesn't need a particular rule. Plus the rule against clutter is already there. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 12:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:54, 19 June 2024

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

LEADLANG clarification[edit]

I noticed something in MOS:LEADLANG that could do with some clarification.

  1. If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name may be included in the lead sentence.
  2. Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names, as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability.
  3. Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology.
  4. Foreign-language names should be moved to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence.
  5. Separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas....

While point one to four complement each other, point 5 seems to be open to interpretation: why mention "separate languages" if we're only supposed to include "a single foreign language" in the lead sentence? When dealing with multiple languages, do we keep the single foreign language equivalent that is closely associated with the subject and move the others to a footnote or do we move all of them to a footnote? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of a lead that is well done and conforms with the guidance. There is a "single foreign language" plus the English language, with a semicolon between the two "separate languages".
Geneva (/əˈnvə/ jə-NEE-və;[1] French: Genève [ʒənɛv] )[note 1] is the second-most populous city in Switzerland (after Zürich) and the most populous of the French-speaking Romandy.

References

  1. ^ "Geneva". Lexico UK English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22.
Does that help answer your first question? CUA 27 (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This confirms what I always understood it to mean, i.e., keep the single foreign language equivalent that is closely associated with the subject in the lead sentence and move the others to a footnote; however, I'm not convinced that everyone will interpret it the same way (given the cited Genghis Khan example). Clarifying this, maybe with the Geneva example, would remove any possible misinterpretation of the recommendations. M.Bitton (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording could be more clear, but also feel it would be unnecessary to have it be a firmer wording as such. Depending on context, There are other factors, mainly the length of alternative names, where one could squeeze in two names and have it be an equally elegant solution (footnotes aren't zero-cost in a layout, even if they're usually near-zero).
Tell me if I'm wrong, but Chinese is nearly the worst-case scenario for this: both script and romanization are always necessary, it is often preferred to include both simplified and traditional forms, there are often multiple relevant romanizations... all for text that a supermajority of our audience cannot read and will likely find a teensy net negative for their reading experience, much as I love looking at Chinese characters all day. Remsense 05:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pinging those who edited the article recently.@Schierbecker, HansVonStuttgart, SMcCandlish, Anachronist, Thinker78, Moxy, Loytra, and MicrobiologyMarcus: your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I usually put everything in the note.... simply to make the first sentence as legible as possible.....but using the example above in the info box. If our readers have to read a sentence multiple times for a meaning behind it.... chances are we've lost that reader. Moxy🍁 16:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged, but the only edit I've made to the article was a minor grammar improvement. I'm in favor of putting it all in the note. I find IPA rather useless and cluttery, actually, and I would be happiest if those were relegated to footnotes, but the community here seems enamored with including IPA in lead sentences wherever possible. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I am not the only one who doesn't like the IPA clutter. Donald Albury 18:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share your views. Put it all in a note. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, please! IPA is useful for rare/foreign words and many names. Anyway, that wasn't the question in the first place, was it? Gawaon (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the question was about how to deal with multiple languages. M.Bitton (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also support having foreign language names condensed into footnotes if there's more than one language or if the names are super long. I've seen so many articles in which the lead sentence takes up nearly a paragraph-worth of space simply because of the translations. However, I also think it's important that these footnotes use the 'Note' group rather than the 'lower-alpha' group, as the former creates larger in-line footnotes that are easier to spot for those searching for foreign language names. Loytra (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point 5 exists because point 4 exists. That is, if all this language information is included, it should be in a footnote per no. 4; and no. 5 says how to format it. It's not logically possible for point 5 to be a "magical override" that means to include all this information in the lead text, formatted per no. 5, or 1-4 simply would not exist.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADPRON suggested revisions[edit]

MOS:LEADPRON suggested revision #1[edit]

I propose we change this:

"Do not include pronunciations for names of foreign countries whose pronunciations are well known in English (France, Poland)."

to this:

"Do not include in the text of the lead sentence pronunciations for names of foreign locations whose pronunciations are well known in English (e.g., Poland, Paris)."

The logic is clear — if the "pronunciations are well known", then no pronunciation guide is needed. I don't see any good reason to limit this sound guidance to countries.

CUA 27 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm a bit sceptical – currently the French pronunciation of Paris is given in an explanatory note, which is absolutely fine. We shouldn't give the impression that mentioning it is forbidden altogether. Gawaon (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I’ve revised by adding “in the text of the lead sentence” to address your point. Pronunciation guides are fine, but not when they unnecessarily clutter the lead sentence. CUA 27 (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADPRON suggested revision #2[edit]

I propose adding the green text:

"It is preferable to move pronunciation guides to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they are lengthy or would otherwise clutter the first sentence.[O] Do not include pronunciation guides in the text of the lead sentence for foreign translations of the article title, as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability."

With these changes, the following unreadable first sentence:

São Tomé and Príncipe (/ˌsaʊ təˈmeɪ ... ˈprɪnsɪpə, -peɪ/ ⓘ SOW tə-MAY ... PRIN-sih-pə, -⁠pay;[9] Portuguese: São Tomé e Príncipe (Portuguese pronunciation: [sɐ̃w tuˈmɛ i ˈpɾĩsɨpɨ]); English: "Saint Thomas and Prince") ... is an island country in the Gulf of Guinea, off the western equatorial coast of Central Africa.

becomes much more readable, with no information lost:

São Tomé and Príncipe[a] (English: "Saint Thomas and Prince") ... is an island country in the Gulf of Guinea, off the western equatorial coast of Central Africa.

CUA 27 (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed new sentence sounds fine to me. I don't think the insertion "are lengthy" is necessary, since "clutter" already implies it. Gawaon (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

Hey, does MOS:LEADCITE apply to notes which are linked to the lead only, example Horizon Forbidden West. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I got your question right, but LEADCITE only states that facts that are referenced in the article body can appear in the lead without needing to repeat the reference there. If something appears only in the lead, then it must be referenced just as if it appeared anywhere else. Gawaon (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, my question is about information that's included in a efn note and the note is only used in the lead, can the note be covered by LEADCITE or should be it be cited? See the note at the top of the infobox at Horizon Forbidden West and recent edit history. Indagate (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article text has a citation for a version of the claim at the bottom of the "Release" section: Nixxes Software then ported the Complete Edition to Windows on 21 March 2024.[1] That claim may need to be qualified, but that does not mean that a citation is needed in the infobox.

References

  1. ^ Lyles, Taylor (21 March 2024). "Horizon Forbidden West Complete Edition PC Requirements Revealed". IGN. Archived from the original on 20 March 2024. Retrieved 6 April 2024.

Donald Albury 20:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LEADCITE and responding to challenges over material in the lead[edit]

I've frequently seen people respond to challenges over material in the lead of an article solely by pointing to LEADCITE, without indicating what citations in the body they feel support the statements in question. I don't think this is acceptable; WP:V is non-negotiable and is vastly more important than keeping an uncluttered lead, which means that every statement in an article, including the lead, must have citations somewhere in the article, and per WP:BURDEN, someone who wishes to retain them must actually be able to produce the citations in question - vaguely waving a hand at the entire article and implying that they exist is insufficient (and makes verification incredibly difficult.) When text is challenged you must actually be able to produce the specific citations that support it. I suggest adding a bit to LEADCITE along the lines of Citations for challenged material can be omitted from the lead of an article only when the relevant citations exist in the body; therefore, when responding to a challenge over text in the lead of an article, WP:BURDEN requires that you clearly indicate, in your edit summary or on talk, which specific citations already in the article support the text in question. Because WP:V is core policy, an article-specific consensus to omit citations from the lead of an article cannot overcome this requirement. --Aquillion (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADCITE already says that only "redundant citations in the lead" may be omitted, and that "complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations", even in the lead. Otherwise I don't think your addition would be all that helpful since it's unclear who the "you" is that it addresses. You can just point out to your interlocutors that unsourced material may be challenged and removed, and that LEADCITE doesn't change that. Gawaon (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDITED Lead Page[edit]

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I have revised the lead page by summarizing key points and mentioning important aspects and sections of the article itself. I noticed in this article how there was a short lead in the section, and missing depth in the information; as I have also read the conversations above. Emooshka11 (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just vandalized the page by replacing part of it with sociology content. I reverted your change. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, but I don't understand. The article stated the lead page needed revision as there was a short summary. How do I edit without vandalizing? I do not see what I have done wrong here, as I am simply confused. Emooshka11 (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emooshka11, you edited the Manual of Style page to write about sociology. Look at your edit and compare it to the current page. Does that help you understand that you edited the wrong page? Schazjmd (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Hi Emooshka11. I see that you are a student editor. This can all be very confusing for newbies here. I don't think you deliberately "vandalized" the page, but that was the effect. You deleted existing content and replaced it with a bunch of stuff about sociology. The WP:Manual of Style is not a Wikipedia article, but instructions for editors. It isn't about sociology. Maybe you accidentally copy-pasted the stuff in there? That can happen. You had just edited the History of sociology article, and maybe that stuff was on your clipboard and you accidentally left it here.

You need to constantly click that "history" tab to see what you have done, whether the result is what you intended, and any reactions to what you did. People will respond and leave edit summaries there. Try it now. Open the "project page" tab and look at its "history". Click on any relevant links (they are called "diffs" by editors). You will see your edit and my response. Then return here and respond to my comments here. I'll be happy to guide you through this. It's pretty overwhelming in the beginning. I have taught a college class about editing Wikipedia. During an assignment I gave the class, a group of girls got together and managed to use WP:Wikilinks to get far afield from what I intended. They got from the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940), to engineering, to the engineering involved in bra design. That involved breasts, leading them to discover the huge amount of uncensored porn at Wikipedia. Their laughter alerted me to what was going on. We all got a good laugh.

BTW, I have written an essay about "lead": How to create and manage a good lead section (a how-to guide). An article's lead is a sensitive matter. Generally, no significant changes should be made to the lead unless there is a genuine need for it. That can occur when the body of the article has been enlarged or significantly changed. Changing a lead often requires quite a bit of knowledge about the whole article. Therefore, it's better to work on the body, rather than change the lead, at least while you are a newbie. Of course, minor copy edits to improve the grammar, spelling, and punctuation in the lead are always welcome. That doesn't change the lead's summary of the whole article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship in the lede[edit]

We are having a debate on Talk:Stevie Wonder#Citizenship over his newly acquired dual citizenship status. It doesn't seem as though there is a standard to go by on how to refer to a person with dual citizenship; for instance Tina Turner lived in Switzerland for many years, yet she was not referred to as "American-Swiss". Also, Tom Hanks is American-Greek and this is not reflected in the lede. The infoboxes of these articles do point out additional citizenships, and I made sure this was the case on Stevie Wonder. However, several editors insist that his dual citizenship status must be mentioned in the lede despite him being an American citizen for almost the entirety of his life. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on adding the proposed sentence (shown below in bold so editors can readily see the change):

Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names, as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability. Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology. Do not include in the text of the lead foreign equivalents written in non-Roman script, as this is unhelpful to the non-specialist reader. Foreign-language names should be moved to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence.[A]

Some examples where non-Roman script provides clutter to all readers, but probably helps only a very tiny minority of readers:

  • Districts (Sinhala: දිස්ත්‍රි‌ක්‌ක, romanized: Distrikka, Tamil: மாவட்டம், romanized: Māvaṭṭam) are the second level administrative divisions of Sri Lanka, preceded by provinces.
  • The Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (also known as PIDE) ( ‏‎پاکستان دانشگاہِ ترقیاتی معاشیات) is a post-graduate research institute and a public policy think tank located in the vicinity of Islamabad, Pakistan.

These would be better as footnotes or moved elsewhere in the article, and not in the text of the lead. Thoughts? CUA 27 (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking to see if anyone wants to weigh in? CUA 27 (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this change is necessary. There is nothing wrong with having a fairly short expression in another script in the lead sentence. Excessive cases are to be avoided, but that's common sense and doesn't need a particular rule. Plus the rule against clutter is already there. Gawaon (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=upper-alpha> tags or {{efn-ua}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=upper-alpha}} template or {{notelist-ua}} template (see the help page).

Leave a Reply