Talk:IOOF Opera House

Wikilinking IOOF in opening sentence

Sirlanz and I are in disagreement on the formatting and the use of a Wikilink in the first sentence in this article. Initially, Sirlanz incorporated a Wikilink to the IOOF article into the boldfaced name "IOOF Opera House" in that first sentence (diff). I reverted, citing MOS:BOLDAVOID, which states "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead." Sirlanz then restored the Wikilink and eliminated the boldfacing of the article title in the intial sentence (diff). I reverted, citing WP:BOLDTITLE, which states "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". Sirlanz reverted my change, again eliminating the boldfaced reiteration of the title and restoring roman type with the Wikilink; unfortunately, the edit summary didn't make his/her reasoning at all clear (diff). I'd like to ask for clarification.

To me, it's fairly clear that WP:BOLDTITLE applies: "I.O.O.F. Opera House" is the name that appears on the National Register of Historic Places nomination form (cited in article), which seems to make it "a formal or widely accepted name for the subject", so something that should be boldfaced in the opening sentence. Sirlanz hasn't addressed that in the latest edit summaries, which purportedly justify the change from bold back to roman.

MOS:BOLDAVOID says that the acronym shouldn't be Wikilinked within that boldfaced reiteration. Given that, the proper way to Wikilink "IOOF" would be from a sentence later in the article, explaining the building's connection with the group and including a citation. Ammodramus (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Ammodramus and User:Sirlanz, I notice this because it turns out i created the article originally. I pretty much agree with Ammodramus's perspective. Sirlanz's priority perhaps is to get a wikilink to International Order of Odd Fellows early in the article? So perhaps revise the first sentence to something like "The IOOF Opera House in Hampton, Nebraska, United States, was built for the local International Order of Odd Fellows chapter in 1893. It is a 40-foot (12 m) by 65-foot (20 m) building." Would that be agreeable. Sirlanz, would you please comment about your goal? --doncram 04:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The acronym is not explained in the article, nor was any link provided for users to find out what it meant. It's essential that be dealt with at the outset because the acronym immediately begs the question and must be answered. WP:AVOIDBOLD, in its second part, makes specific allowance for flexibility, i.e. bold format can be set aside in appropriate cases. This is such an instance. In my view, it is imperative we provide convenient and economical access to the answer to the question for encyclopaedia users, so take advantage of the WP:AVOIDBOLD rule flexibility and link it. The alternate is to work in a link somewhere else by introducing more material. If that is preferred, it needs to be right up there in the lede. sirlanz 04:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

So would the following be okay (now with IOOF in parentheses following International Order of Odd Fellows): "The IOOF Opera House in Hampton, Nebraska, United States, was built for the local International Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF) chapter in 1893. It is a 40-foot (12 m) by 65-foot (20 m) building." My sense is that Ammodramus wants to keep the bolded name for the place, and Sirlanz wants IOOF to be defined, and this does both. --doncram 05:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Grateful for doncram's expert mediation. I prefer mine because it's more economical and we avoid repeating the IOOF but I'm happy to accept this compromise, too. sirlanz 05:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the basic outline of Doncram's suggestion; indeed, it's essentially what I called for in the third paragraph of my initial post here, and in one of my edit summaries. I'm not sure if "built for the local IOOF chapter..." is accurate, though: by the nom form, the upper floor was leased to the IOOF by the owner, while the lower was initially occupied by a grocery story and the First National Bank. Moreover, much of the focus in the nom form is on the hall's use as a performance space rather than by the IOOF. I'd be careful about over-weighting the importance of the IOOF here.

Sirlanz, I don't think you're reading the combination of WP:BOLDTITLE and MOS:BOLDAVOID accurately. The former includes some fairly strong prescriptions: if the article's title is a formal or widely used name, bold it in the first sentence; and if it can be accommodated in normal English, include it and bold it. The second part of MOS:BOLDAVOID only allows us to avoid that initial bolded use of the article title in cases where it would lead to stilted or awkward English. That's not the case here: the article title is an official name of sorts, and using it in the lead sentence doesn't produce painful English. I don't see anything in BOLDAVOID that allows us to drop the bolding so that we can include a link. Ammodramus (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, Ammodramus is correct to question what the facts are about building date and whether it was "for" the IOOF. The current article reads that it "was built in 1893" but when I read the NRHP document yesterday, i think it said the building was built in 1880, and that the IOOF chapter began using the second floor in 1893. Is this a case where the NRIS database includes 1893 as a date of significance, when it is not actually a built date? Where there are any differences between NRIS vs. the NRHP document, usually the NRHP document should be trusted more, because NRIS is just data entered (with possible introduction of errors) from the NRHP document. --doncram 17:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A commonsense approach is needed. If the policy permits completely ditching the bold rule for the sake of mere text flow, it stands to reason that the prohibition on linking in the bold text might be stretched to accommodate a situation such as this in order to serve readers' needs. The initial edit revert also failed to address the obvious goal of my initial edit and was thus unconstructive. Now we see that Ammodramus' strictured view of the no-link rule leads to new (and real) underlying factual difficulties. Of course, that may be overcome by more research and/or more creative phraseology. If someone is ready to do that work, fine, if not, we would be better served by bending a good rule in an appropriate case. sirlanz 06:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

"Mere" text flow? After factual accuracy, readability is everything in a WP article. If the prose is painful and awkward, a reader's likely to give up before extracting any meaning from a passage.

And how difficult would it have been to insert a well-sourced statement explaining the building's connection to the IOOF, with a Wikilink? Out of curiosity, did Sirlanz actually check the sources to verify that the acronym did indeed stand for "Independent Order of Odd Fellows"? Or did he/she just create the Wikilink, based on the assumption that it probably wasn't, say, the Indiana-Ohio-Ontario Freundschaftsverein? If the research had actually been done, methinks that adding the sentence and citation would've been no great task. If the research hadn't been done... well, if we're going to be flexible with MOS:BOLDTITLE, then maybe we can be flexible with WP:V as well. Ammodramus (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, this is silly, or maybe there is sarcasm or humor here. The IOOF referred to in the name is the International Order of Odd Fellows. That's what IOOF stands for. The redirect at IOOF (to International Order of Odd Fellows) was created in 2010 by editor Pdfpdf, because that is obviously the primary usage of the term. No research is needed on what IOOF means. It remains that there is some improvement to the article is possible, which includes leaving bolded phrase IOOF Opera House in the first sentence (because it is the name of the place) and which also defines IOOF by including "International Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF)" within the first one or two sentences (because it is in fact very sensible to define the term, for the many potential readers who are not familiar with the term). I might not participate here further, am not sure. --doncram 17:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)