Wikipedia talk:Lead section

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lead section page.
	Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming Shortcut: WT:LEAD
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles		WikiProject Manual of Style
	v • d • e This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Contents 1 Transclusions 2 Meaning of "Lead"? 3 RfC: References in the Lead 3.1 Why isn't this RfC appearing in the list? 4 example for Format of the first sentence 5 Opening paragraph 6 Sub-article template 7 Do we really want to control our readers? 8 Peacock terms in the lead

[edit] Transclusions

I moved the “Link to subarticle” section into the “Elements”, since it precedes the Lead paragraph. I also made “Lead sentence format” a subsection of “Lead sentence”.

Obviously, the transclusion scheme interferes with such edits which are not restricted to a single transcluded section. Sorry. A bit of clean-up is still required. I suggest that these guidelines specific to the lead section be linked from elsewhere, instead of appearing in two places. If you must transclude two adjacent sections, then put them in a single page, so at least they can be edited together. —Michael Z. 2009-01-14 22:08 z

[edit] Meaning of "Lead"?

Does anyone know what this means exactly? "The lead serves as both an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking someone else would have answered by now. The meaning is that the lede has two purposes:

• It provides a concise summary of the entire article. If you only read the lede you should at least have a sense of all the major points that will be covered. In this sense it serves like an abstract.
• It is also the first section that a reader sees, so it also serves as an introduction by placing the topic in context, orienting the reader to the material, and foreshadowing the rest of the article.

Of course these can support each other, but occasionally articles go too far in either direction – they can leave too much out of the lede in an attempt to be introductory, or ignore all introduction and assume the reader is already familiar with the topic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: References in the Lead

We need to clean up ugly leads and avoid unnecessary controversy. 04:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A perennial problem that causes some unnecessary controversy is the use of refs in the lead, which can sometimes make a lead rather bulky and clumsy. We need leads that create a good first impression, leads that are clean and simple.

Currently this policy has a section about how to use citations in the lead, and it contains this sentence:

"There is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads."

I'd like to start a discussion about this practice, and it will likely require a change of the policy(ies) related to this. I think we can manage just fine without a long list of links in the lead. I think we can keep it to a minimum.

Let me start with some basic presuppositions. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will point it out ;-):

1. The lead must summarize all significant content.

2. That content is already properly sourced, or it shouldn't be in the body of the article, and therefore there is no need for duplication of the refs in the lead.

3. To summarize the content efficiently, everything that deserves a heading should be mentioned very shortly in the LEAD.

4. Long and important sections may deserve several sentences, and short ones may only deserve a sentence or phrase.

This leads to a fifth point as my suggested improvement:

5. Every phrase, sentence, or group of sentences in the lead that summarizes a section, should contain only one ref that points to that section. This would ensure that all significant content is mentioned, and eliminate all doubt about which content is being discussed. It would also make it easier to update the lead when content is changed.

I think we could clean things up by specifically eliminating any requirement for citations to external sources in the lead. Instead we could use internal links to sections as refs in the LEAD. These refs would not appear in the references section near the bottom, but would just hop back and forth between the lead and the article section using <A HREF="#spot"> tags.

-- Brangifer (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll need those refs to avoid people thinking it's unreferenced.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

They would be there, but we wouldn't have the long rows of refs after a single sentence, which we occasionally have. They make a lead look really ugly and unreadable. Right now we have a selective use of some or all refs, which are then duplicated in the body of the article. That would be unnecessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, especially point five - pointing to the relevant section, and perhaps a footnote/comment which contains the reference tag names? Verbal chat 12:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not all facts are in the body though; birthdates for example. These need to be referenced, and you can't reference them elsewhere. That's the screw-case.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

True enough, since we often add small details without them appearing in the body of the article. This is technically a violation of LEAD and can be fixed by just following the rules for LEAD, or we can just allow this as an exception to what is being proposed here, and just use a single ref. Either way it's easily solved. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There's also the big problem with contentious leads that sometimes you need 3-4 references to back up the statements in it. I've seen leads thrash about for months until you have a row of references that are essentially inarguable. So, basically, I don't care how untidy it is.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That problem is what inspired this suggestion and this is the way to solve that problem. I've seen rows of references as long as 10-12! That's absurd. It is especially problematic with controversial articles, and we can solve this by keeping all those references in the body of the article, and then just using one link to point to the appropriate section. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The missing tool is a method of internal links so that statements in the lede can be verifiably associated with the basis statement in the body of the article. Absent that kind of tool, the next best thing is to reference in the lede, but ensure all those references are named references used elsewhere in the article. We can do that simply by saying "References in the lede should be named references to citations elsewhere in the article." The downside is that these will not be in numerical order of appearance, but that's a nit.LeadSongDog come howl 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a relatively minor problem that can be fixed with an additional tool. It may even be possible right now using a direct link to the section. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You can cite a section of the article like this: *. This example directs to the section Why isn't this RfC appearing in the list? Fences and windows (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent method. I have tried it at my coming article Alternative medicine critics, and it works great. It looks much more simple than having multiple refs after each significant word, phrase, or sentence. I have used this format: ^{[[#Sources_of_criticism|#]]}, which seems to work just fine. So it's already possible using simple HTML, but a tool would be nice. There are already a number of codes at the bottom of the editing window, and one more could be added. BTW, I'm aware that the lead there doesn't currently conform totally to the usual rules. It will need to be tweaked before releasing the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The simple way around lots of links in the lead is to combine refs between one set of ref tags at the end of the sentence or paragraph. But we can't have an exception in WP:V for leads: the policy is that all edits that are challenged or likely to be challenged,and all quotations, need a reference. This guideline can't override the policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE, "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material".
WP:V, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
This info box at the top of every guideline is so familiar that you might not read it! {{policy|WP:V|WP:VERIFY|WP:SOURCE}} If there is a clash between guidelines, then use common sense "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule". If the lead becomes unreadable because of citations then leave them out. I agree with the bringer of RfC, the source of the lead is the article. Another way. The lead implicitly cites the body of the article as it's source. Another way. Wikipedia demands that the lead only includes important information from the body, therefore, by design, the source for the lead is the body of the article - important bits in the body of the article would need citations. All claims which require citations will be in the article, the lead can therefore use the article body as source. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a sentence to the effect that the lead is using the article body as source because the article body cites good quality sources. That's a claim which covers the lead source, and transfers the citation burden to the body - where it's going to be anyway :) HarryAlffa (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I've been bold and tried to clarify the competing concerns. [1] Thoughts? Rd232 ^talk 14:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

NB my edit addresses current practice, not the new idea of linking from lead to body, which I think is a bit confusing, and anyway would need wider discussion than this MOS talk page. Rd232 ^talk 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't this RfC appearing in the list?

Will someone please figure out what's wrong? See my request here. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I had exactly the same problem a couple of weeks ago. It's best to add RfCs manually, I find. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] example for Format of the first sentence

The first line from the Solar System is used as an example, and it's a great line, but the rest of the lead stinks (IMHO), especially for a featured article. I put it up for FA review, and that got some changes, but it's still poor. I've put an RfC out on it, but the same editors who've looked after it for the past couple(?) of years are the only respondents - plus one guy who wants the Moon/Earth classed as a double-planet.

I think some other example should be used so users don't copy the poor example of the rest of the lead. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

Quote;

The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. 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, give the location and time context. Also, establish the boundaries of the content of the article (for example List of environmental issues is only about the effects of human activity).

It shouldn't need saying, but the Set should not be the whole set of facts surrounding the subject. I think Set should be replaced with sub-set. The Solar System lead (which I've changed through FA review, and am now in RfC with), does indeed supply in the lead the whole Set of facts surrounding the subject. The sub-set would need qualifying by significant maybe, or important. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-article template

The guideline mentions creating a link from a sub-article to the parent: the example given was "This is a sub-article to Muhammad before Medina." Is there not a template for this? --Jameboy (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

{{main}} works; if you think we need a new one for this specific wording then {{child}} hasn't been taken yet. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really want to control our readers?

The article says, in the introductory text section, The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. That bold faced section needs to come out. Different people have different purposes for coming to Wikipedia. Some 13-year old kid might have just heard about Hirohito in class, been confused by the reference, and simply needs to know that he was the emperor of Japan during WWII. Now I personally would like him to read more and learn more, but it is not my job to write the article with that end in mind, and it's both silly and arrogant for me to think like that. Not a big deal, really, but I'm going to remove it. Unschool 02:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove it. It simply means that leads should be well-written and interesting, so that readers might want to read more about the topic, rather than getting bored after the first sentence. That is obviously true. We do want to control our readers in that sense, yes! :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but the words in the text do not match the meaning you ascribe to them. Look, elsewhere in the guideline is this sentence: Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. The difference between the "make readers" version and the "consideration should be given" version is subtle—perhaps invisible to some—but I greatly prefer the latter language, and have no intention of removing it. I just don't think our guideline should include verbiage that indicates that we aim to manipulate. Unschool 03:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into the word "make." We want leads to be well-written, and to "make" people want to read more because their interest is piqued, rather than having leads of one sentence that don't really say anything. But that's not manipulation, except in the most banal of senses. We're not causing readers to be injected with heroin the minute they read our leads, making them read on for more. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose I could be reading too much into it. But if it was better worded, as it is elsewhere in the guideline, then the problem ceases to exist. I'll leave it alone, since it seems to be more important to you than it is to me, but really, it wouldn't hurt to change the wording. G'day! Unschool 03:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock terms in the lead

I've noticed that peacock terms are often found in lead sections, and the style guideline Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms discusses this with examples. Because this problem is endemic to lead sections, it would be helpful to see it mentioned here. Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with a brief mention of this, as long as we also recognize sometimes superlatives are not only acceptable, but desirable. I've seen some editors mistake overwhelming historical consensus for peacock terms, and I don't want to add to the confusion in the matter. For example, this sentence is taken from the lead of Abraham Lincoln: [Lincoln] successfully led the country through its greatest internal crisis, the American Civil War, and even though virtually every historian on the planet agrees that the US Civil War was the country's "greatest internal crisis" (often using those three words verbatim), editors have said that this is subjective, and needs to be excised. There's a place for common sense here, as this section of WP:APT makes clear. Unschool 19:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've run into the same problem several times as well. Let me try to come up with something and present it to you here for review. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)