Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 5

< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style | Lead section
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Wolfkeeper in topic Query
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Length Examples

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Um, what's up with the links to example leads? They are linking to some odd proxy login. Should I be this confused? -Watchsmart (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There does not seem to be anything particular about the links (except that they are links to specific historical versions of the articles, which makes good sense for style guideline examples).
What does confuse me is that the links were apparently added without any prior discussion, and so it is not clear that they reflect consensus about what is a reasonable lead length. Personally I would consider Genetics to be a bit on the long side. It helps a bit that the article is rather long, too, but exactly therefore I doubt that it is a good example to present without any comments. –Henning Makholm 20:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Another editor fixed them. Two of them were linking like this: Genetics. Guess it doesn't matter now, but would that have happened because an editor was accessing Wikipedia through a proxy? -Watchsmart (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Current status in bio articles?

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Is it appropriate to mention a person's current employment status in lead paragraphs? I have observed that the convention is usually to do so, but I specifically have this edit in mind. Bearing in mind that BLP articles are essentially an "ongoing" project, it is obvious that statuses of sorts will change with time. However, is it appropriate to list a status such as in this edit, in the lead paragraph? Ekantik talk 21:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I see with that is your use of the word currently, a term that is certain to age. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but if the wording can be changed (especially over time) thee is no problem with stating the subject's current status right? Ekantik talk 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a guideline for that. As pointed out on your talk page, Ekantik, Miss Bollywood is a recent event. The lead is here to summarise the article; it has to be relevant. We still don't know what the reception is, how it benefited her, how it contributed to her success, if that is notable, if that builds her image, if that is a milestone of her career or a major failure. It is still on going (and it has nothing to do with the fact that Wikipedia is an ongoing project in that context). Currently, Angelina Jolie works in 2-3 films or so. So what? Should we mention them all in the lead?
According to WP:WBA and this very policy: "...the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting..."
Well, the quote speaks for itself. Is Shilpa (in our particular case) known for Miss Bollywood among others? And the answer is
  • A) No.
  • B) We still don't know.
Why should recent events appear in the lead section? Mention them in the body.
Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 23:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Shahid, please get some more experience in writing biographical articles and edify yourself with the relevant MOSs'. Perhaps then we can have a reasonable discussion. WP:WBA is not a policy, it is a MOS. And while I'm at it, Wikilawyering as you regularly indulge in is preventing the improvement of several articles. Please stop wikilawyering and modify your reasonings to apply to all of Wikipedia, instead of narrowing it's scop to fit just one article. Regards, Ekantik talk 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Your attitude is disheartening. Please calm yourself and conduct yourself appropriately. WP:WBA, whether a MOS or a policy, is a guideline for writing, and in fact, you can find the same lines in this very policy. Go and check. Don't tell me "get some more experience in writing biographical articles". It's a personal attack. In fact, I have more experience than you have on here, my friend. I've gone through FACs and I can refer you to some great FA reviewers, and they will definitely agree with me on that. Your way of criticising me is quite laughable rather than offensive. You have more experience... I see...
For the record, I can quote this very policy, which states the same, "summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable". Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 17:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

concise overview of the article???

Latest comment: 16 years ago46 comments11 people in discussion

After having tried to apply this guideline to multiple articles, I disagree with this. I think the lead should be a concise overview of the subject, not the article.

The problem with summarising the article is that the article frequently needs to contain reasonably peripheral things for comprehensibility, and if the lead has to summarise the article, then because of that, the lead tends to get relatively big, without any net gain of readability. I think that introducing the article should only really be done in the section after the lead and the TOC.

It may sound nitpicky, but it's helped cause huge problems in articles like Network neutrality.

Comments?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The lede has both purposes. It is a standalone article which gives a very brief synopsis of the topic at hand, and at the same time an outline of the article to follow. Ignoring either of these purposes leads to an article that is less useful. But achieving both purposes requires significant work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Primarily you need to consider the audience. I think that people come to a wikipedia article to learn about a particular topic; not to learn about a particular article. Learning about the article that follows can wait until after the lead. The lead often needs to be super-condensed summary, and anything that doesn't have to go in there shouldn't. The summary of the article doesn't need to.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Since the article is on the same topic as the lede, it is possible to both summarize the important points about the topic, as well as the important parts of the article, at the same time. Certainly the lede should not do one, and then the other. But, typically, each major section of the article covers an important aspect of the topic at hand, so covering as the lede covers those aspects it can also foreshadow the structure of the article below. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Right. But the lead shouldn't have to contain all of the information in the article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The lede is part of the article, and has to make sense when read as an introduction to it. The recommended length for a lede is not "as short as possible", but rather several paragraphs for an average article or longer for a particularly long article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No as a matter of fact. The recommendation is no more than 4 paragraphs. FWIW Network Neutrality is 65k currently, IMO 4 paragraphs probably isn't enough, and the topic seems to be difficult to split up into multiple articles.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This seems to be an argument in favour of "Introduction" sections (as the Net example shows). Those have been deprecated since about '05. Marskell (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, for example it's an argument for not having to mention all of the article in the lead, provided it's comprehensible. A really well article may include things that aren't part of the topic, but might be expected by the reader to be, and those parts are needed to explain why. That needn't necessarily be included in the lead, since it's not actually part of the topic. You need to consider the audience. And don't forget the article and the lead are both on the same topic, so there are limits to how far you can cut things out of the lead.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Further data, Wikipedia:The_perfect_article says:

*starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail.

It does not say article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense. The lead is part of the article, if the thing needs to be in the lead anyway, and is short enough that it can be covered 100% in the lead without any problems, then what's the point in simply repeating it later?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well said. Not only does it make sense, it is that most uncommon of things, common sense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Since the lede is part of the article, one can't mention something in the lede without mentioning it in the article. Whether it needs to be stated twice in the article depends heavily on details and is dealt with by consensus of editors on a particular article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The lead is better thought of as a mini version of the article I think. There is absolutely no reason why something mentioned in the lead has to be repeated elsewhere in the article so long as it is referenced if likely to be challenged, a quotation, etc. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
"There is absolutely no reason why something mentioned in the lead has to be repeated elsewhere in the article." Hm? Virtually everything I add to a lead I repeat elsewhere in the article, with greater elaboration. That's the point of the lead: prepare the reader for what's coming. Marskell (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, but the question isn't whether most or even nearly all things you have in the lead are elaborated in other sections, the question is whether you have to. Since not everything needs elaboration, the answer is no, and thus the lead describes the subject, not the article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you are trying to argue in favor of here. Has there been some recent issue that brought this up? I don't understand why you are so keen on arguing that point; it's clear enough, I think, that the lede is both an introduction to the article and a summary of the article. What effect does it have if the lede describes the subject, not the article? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Abso-friggin'-lutely Oppose - The Lead is a summary of the article, not a substitute for it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
... and by definition a summary need not contain everything mentioned in the article. Agreed? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The lead doesn't have to summarize everything in the article -- that would often be impossible. It can also contain things that aren't mentioned again in the article, so long as they're not that important. These are editorial decisions that depend very much on context. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Right. But when there is conflict, which do you choose? Summarising the article or summarising the subject. The subject, because that's what the audience wants from an encyclopedia.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a false dichotomy, Wolfkeeper. Summarizing an article doesn't mean lifting every major point out of it and putting it in the lead, if that's your worry. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I claim that summarizing the article or summarizing the subject down to fit the 4 paragraph rule gives you a different introduction. WP:LEAD's lead is a good example of why they are not the same thing; So there is a difference, but it's not a dichotomy.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's some featured articles that have introductions that IMO do not have a lead that summarises the article:

  • Crash test dummy - describes subject, not article
  • Butter - contains no history, no discussion of types, no discussion of worldwide consumption, no health and nutrition, in fact practically no overlap at all
  • Sarajevo - article is highly varied, introduction summarises topic, not article
  • Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve - article contains much that is not in any way summarised in introduction

These were literally just the first four I clicked on. In no case did the introduction seem to summarise the article, and they were all FA status, and the introductions seem to be reasonable introductions of the subject matter, not the article. I'm sure you can find articles where the introduction is an exact mirror of the article, but they are rare, and that they have to do that disagrees with the perfect article template as well as being difficult in many cases to physically shoe horn them in, resulting in impaired readability.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many featured articles that fail WP:LEAD, often because they went through FAC a long time ago, but sometimes because FAC tends to focus on citations and copyediting, and other MoS issues. So what? At GA the lead is a major issue: articles that remain GA after a GAR usually have good leads that summarize both article and subject.
WP:LEAD is one of WP's best content guidelines precisely because the lead is (in the words of Carl(CBM)) "a standalone article which gives a very brief synopsis of the topic at hand, and at the same time an outline of the article to follow." It not only tells you how to write a good lead, but how to write a good article. In such an article, every substantial point of the article body is summarized in the lead (but minor points are omitted). If a point in the lead is not elaborated in the article body, it usually suggests either that the point is not important enough for the lead (and so should be moved to the article body, or removed) or that the article body could be improved to elaborate further on that point. Geometry guy 16:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Tell me, If that's the case, then why is the introduction of WP:LEAD itself a summary of the subject, not the article? If it's such a fantastic idea, why heck are we not following our own advice?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Please relax a little. WP:LEAD is not an article, it is a guideline, so it cannot follow its own advice. Geometry guy 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:LEAD is an article, it's just not in the main space; and irrespective of that, there is no reason at all that I am aware of that it cannot follow its own advice, it can and must do so.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But whatever the empirical evidence says, fundamentally, I simply don't think that summarising the article is what the audience wants from an intro; they want a quick thing to get a top level understanding of what subject the article is about, not a top level understanding of the article. The two are NOT the same; and I actually think that making the intro mirror the article impairs the introduction.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Doing what your audience wants is the primary necessity of any work including an encyclopedia.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What actual problem are you trying to solve? — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to write difficult, relatively large articles like Network neutrality and these guidelines are making it even harder.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
As I suggest above, WP:LEAD should actually help you to improve the article body, not just the lead, so that the two roles of the lead work together harmoniously. Good luck with the editing though! Geometry guy 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But the introduction is to the article, not the subject. It's useful to have a concrete example, because I'd say that the current lead fails to be either an adequate introduction to the subject or to the article. Just my opinion though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. You would have a stronger case if WP:LEAD actually follows its own advice. But it doesn't. And everyone is saying how wonderful it is.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Content guidelines apply to article content, not to the guidelines themselves. If policies and guidelines applied to themselves, they'd all get deleted for failing WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV :-) Geometry guy 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I admit that sounded good, but I just checked them over, and you'll have to point out which bits aren't verifiable, as all of them have references, they seem to follow WP:NPOV and to a fair degree aren't original research, and ultimately seem to all refer back to decisions made elsewhere, such as by Wales.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There really isn't any excuse here.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Verifiable to reliable secondary sources? Hmmm, I don't think so... :-) (See also my earlier comment: WP:LEAD is not an article; content guidelines apply to articles, and guidelines are not articles.) Actually it might be quite fun to write an article on WP:LEAD! Pity about the lack of secondary sources, though. Geometry guy 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've just thought of a workaround: in most articles on Wikipedia, Wikipedia itself is not considered to be a reliable source, because it is tertiary source. However, in an article on WP:LEAD (about its history, purpose, application, disputes over its wording etc.), Wikipedia itself would also be a primary source. Hence, on average, it would be a secondary source, and therefore okay :-) Geometry guy 17:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Not everyone says how wonderful it is. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So what's the general consensus on this topic? Has a need to change the wording of WP:LEAD arisen or not? Ekantik talk 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Emphasis vs redundancy sections

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I moved stuff out from under 'emphasis' that had nothing to do with emphasis and had to do with overlaps between the lead and the article, and put it into its own section and tidied it up; please try not to delete entire sections containing pre-existing material.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The new section may be a good idea, but it has been disputed, so I have reverted to the established version of Marskell, 19:40, 20/01/2008 (yesterday), which contains all pre-existing material. Now we can discuss whether the new section is a good idea or not. Geometry guy 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's discuss, the following sentence contained in the 'emphasis' section:

Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only.

is unrelated to emphasis. It is to do with what content is acceptable in a lead and what extent of overlap there may be with the rest of the article. It has a quite different character to the rest of the paragraph. Emphasis seems to be to do with how much text there is on a particular point, not to do with its total absence or presence (though some people do use it in that way, that's really an abuse of the term, and I don't see that such abuse is appropriate or necessary in a wikipedia style guideline.)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This may be a fair point, but I'm not sure.
I'd actually rather drop the second half of this sentence. The first two points ("birthdates" and "titles") apply only to biographies, and the second of these is surely wrong: if someone is given a title in the lead, then it should be elaborated in the body of the article how and when that title was acquired. I have no idea what "scientific designations" means, which suggests that they should also be explained in the body of the article. If it means something like the chemical symbol Cu for copper, then I would expect the body to mention its latin derivation.
Without this latter half, the sentence fits fine under "emphasis", which is also about what is mentioned and what isn't. Geometry guy 20:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Subject/article considered

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

I don't want to run up against 3rr myself, and this tempest-in-a-teacup needs some winding down.

A personal note: this is possibly the oldest guideline I've watched. When I edited it first, in late '05, it said "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" [my emphasis].

The article is devolving. That's not the same thing as it currently reads, and even then: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". [MY emphasis, and yes it matters]- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully you mean evolving? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I do mean the guideline is devolving. The original actually made more sense.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
But that may simply mean that you aren't quite ready to write the lead yet, before the article is finished. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Since then, I've always liked LEAD. I think it's a good guideline in theory and has been a stable guideline in practice. While, of course, the wording has changed, the idea that leads summarize articles is about as old as wording gets around Wikipedia.

That isn't what it said though. And I don't completely agree with the original either.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper has a genuinely felt gripe, but canonical wording shouldn't be messed with easily. Wikipedians have been told that leads sum-up articles for years. The logic continues to hold: if your article summarizes the subject well, then the lead should summarize the article well. A good lead is like a good abstract (arts or science): it hits on the relevant issues and prepares readers for subsequent detail.

An article as opposed to the points in an article consists of headings, words, paragraphs, puncuation and images. A summary of an article is more like an outline. That is not what we want. The wording has devolved, and it wasn't even right to start with.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But what if the article is bad? You don't want a lead summarizing a shitty article? I went around the block on that with SlimVirgin a year ago, and the "Poor articles" section was specifically added to cover it. (No, don't make a bad lead to cover a bad article.) That certain things—choice quotes, titles, birthdates—might be in the lead and not the body has been discussed. Not every word in the lead must be covered in the body, but the basic idea—leads summarize articles—is, at least now, a basic cornerstone on Wikipedia. Marskell (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are arguing against. Of course leads summarize articles; that is one of their roles. Their other role is to serve as an independent, short account of the topic that stands on its own if the remainder of the article is omitted. This is described in Wikipedia:Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview. Neither of these two roles is more important than the other. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not quite what the guidline says. It actually says " ... the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Not the topic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Carl, I was simply arguing against Wolfkeeper's replacing article with subject on this guideline. This subsequent extra threading just makes it too confusing to respond to. Marskell (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Re. Malleus Fataurum. I think you are missing the spirit behind that section, which is that lede should serve as an independent article on the subject at hand, if the rest of the article were deleted. This is important because, for example, the Wikipedia 1.0 people may literally delete the rest of the article in some cases to save space on released versions of WP.
I fear that your interpretation misses that function of the lede. The more I think about it, I am becoming more convinced of the need for the guideline to more accurately reflect this second role that the lede serves. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't believe that I've missed anything, nor that what you call my interpretation is in any way inconsistent with a requirement that the lead ought to be able to serve as a mini-version of the article. But I say again, article, not topic. The difference in meaning between those two words is not a matter of interpretation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the spirit behind this guideline is that ledes have two complementary purposes: to summarize the body of the article, and to serve as a concise, independent treatment of the topic. If there is actually a difference between "concise version of the article" and "concise, independent treatment of the topic", it is the latter that is intended. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with the spirit of any of the guidelines, but the detailed reading varies from that. The problems with serving as a concise independent treatment of the article are many, including particularly for new articles, the article body may even be all but non existent, but you would still wish for a good lead to guide the article forward. If the lead is a "concise, independent treatment of the topic" then that works, and it works right from the beginning, and it works all the way through to FA status. Trying to be concise treatment of the article basically means you're writing a guideline that nobody in their right mind would follow, since who wants a lead that has to be as bad as the article?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I'll be perfectly honest that I haven't read your last posts. (Hey, I'm fair!--I don't listen to anyone!) But I'm thinking that, myself included, we should just not talk. We can debate leads (or LEADs) later, but I think now that this was a specific flare-up from a specific editor and we should take it easy. Marskell (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a talk page, and we talk here.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A lead is supposed to be an outline???

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

An outline? Um no, no, not in a million years. Seriously, has anyone ever read this policy?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wiktionary, definition 5. (Also 4 and 7 are related.) Geometry guy 21:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course I didn't mean a bulleted outline, I meant a prose synopsis. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I knew about that, but that usage is a technical term only used for screenplays.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, with my boring "historical overview" spiked in the above thread, I'd only note here that I think we're OK. "Guidelines" are terribly unstable and hard to reliably cite. This, stable guideline, is well watched. It seems to be a single editor issue. I'll leave a note for Wolfkeeper. Marskell (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
So you've just stated you intend to WP:OWN this article to hold it at this version.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's all be calm. I also think the lede would benefit from some editing, especially if the gerunds are removed from the second paragraph. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
While I am mostly happy with the lede, the lede of this project page doesn't seem to have anything on citations, physical layout or stubs, but they are contained in the project page article. Given that the guideline claims that this is supposed to be an outline of the article, that seems to me to be rather inconsistent.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Policies and guidelines don't include themselves in their own injunctions. (Our definition of verifiability is not actually sourced, for instance.) The P&Gs are directed at article space. I suppose the lead to WP:LEAD could summarize the guideline, but I hesitate over the idea. Marskell (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If you don't eat your own dogfood then how can you expect anyone else to?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Poor articles and stubs section

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems to me that this whole section is only necessary because the claim by people here that the lead is a summary of the article, not the subject of the article; but apparently we don't have consensus on that right now, so, that aside, it's not very well worded; it reads like a mini-essay.

I've already reworded it slightly to remove the royal 'we' to this:

"One difficult content improvement situation is constructing a lead for an article that is in generally poor condition. The suggestions of this guideline are based on the assumption of reasonably well-written articles. It is undesirable to have a "concise overview" of an article that is unwikified or unreferenced. Similarly, relative emphasis in the lead should not reflect the body if the body is haphazard or missing critical information."

I'd like to change the final two sentences to:

"It is undesirable to have a "concise overview" of an article if the body is haphazard or missing critical information. Similarly, relative emphasis in the lead cannot be proven to reflect the important points of the body if the body is unreferenced."

I've removed the point about wikification, that's a good point, but covered by other policies, but the unreferenced point goes to a notability issue specific to leads; since the lead is a summary, by definition it only covers the most important points, but absent references saying that something is or isn't important, isn't putting something in the lead basically a subtle (or in some cases I've seen in Network neutrality a not so subtle) form of OR?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I've done a light copy edit and introduced some more section headers. I think the only part I removed entirely was the bit about writing leads for poorly written articles, as it didn't seem to say much and was oddly written. Otherwise, it was just a copy edit. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, this is the bit I removed -- it was either repeating material elsewhere in the text, or was unclear:

One difficult content improvement situation is constructing a lead for an article that is in generally poor condition. The suggestions of this guideline are based on the assumption of reasonably well-written articles. It is undesirable to have a "concise overview" of an article that is unwikified or unreferenced. Similarly, relative emphasis in the lead should not reflect the body if the body is haphazard or missing critical information.

SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This was added, Slim, precisely because you complained about the fact. Marskell (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you remember where, or what I said? I can't imagine I'd have supported anything that started: "One difficult content improvement situation is ..." :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Although I agree there is a shift in register that makes it read oddly. Marskell (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You said something to the following effect (I'm not going to look it up): a biased editor can use the lack of information in a weak article to exclude information from the lead, if the lead is supposed to be summarizing the article. Thus (I added): a good lead is not necessarily summarizing the article, if the article sucks.
"One difficult content improvement situation is ..." is a shift from the imperative to the observational; it does read badly, on a Wikipedia guideline. The point holds, however. "This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body" immediately above may already cover things. Marskell (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see now. I'll try to think of a way to get that back in without it looking odd. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Query

Latest comment: 16 years ago26 comments5 people in discussion

Wolfkeeper, you seem to be a man on a mission, but it's very unclear what your point is. I removed this from the lead: "The lead section defines and summarises the topic that the article covers for the reader." Could you explain what you mean, please? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead can't be entirely a summary for the article, because what is it that defines and identifies what subject that the article is on? The users don't first read the lead for an overview of the article, they read it to find out what subject the article is about, then they read to find out more once they know that they're at the right article. It's important that the lead should act as an overview of the article itself, but it's primarily important that the lead, particularly the first paragraph of the lead, defines what subject the whole article is talking about. That's not a summary, that's a definition.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you're making a distinction without a difference. But regardless of that, the writing on this page had deteriorated considerably, and we need to keep it reasonable. We can't have a page that says, in effect, "write like this," then have it contain poor writing.
I think the difficulty you're having in expressing your point is a sign that the point is not a clear one, Wolfkeeper. I mean no disrespect by this because it happens to us all. I'm just trying to point out that often the struggle to express ourselves signals that the concept we're trying to put into words is not as solid as we think, because if we were thinking about it clearly, clear language would follow. If it doesn't, we need to let that tell us something. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I use words very precisely. There's something missing from the lead guidelines, and it is the word 'define'. For example the section 'The lead as a concise overview' talks about establishing context. No, that's wrong. Context is the stuff surrounding something, not the thing. If you take words out of context, you are removing the words from their surroundings, that doesn't change the words, but it changes the impression of words, surely. I very firmly believe that that is not what the first paragraph must do, it must define the subject of the article, and by extension that is the single most important thing in a lead.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Why are you using the word "define"? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Because we are defining what the article is about. The article Bird is about:

Birds (class Aves) are bipedal, warm-blooded, vertebrate animals that lay eggs. There are around 10,000 living species, making them the most numerous tetrapod vertebrates. They inhabit ecosystems across the globe, from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Birds range in size from the 5 cm (2 in) Bee Hummingbird to the 2.7 m (9 ft) Ostrich.

Caffeine is about:

Caffeine is a stimulant drug. It is a xanthine alkaloid compound that acts as a psychoactive stimulant and a mild diuretic (at doses higher than 300 mg- see Relative content: comparison of different sources)[2] in humans. The word comes from the French term for coffee, café.[3] Caffeine is also called guaranine when found in guarana, mateine when found in mate, and theine when found in tea; all of these names are synonyms for the same chemical compound

We are defining for the reader (and also for other editors incidentally) the purpose of the article. It is not simply a summary of whatever happens to be in the article; there is an intention behind it, that this is what the article is about. This happens particularly in the first paragraph.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't an article on some pop band or whatnot. Please make sure you have a pretty solid consensus before heading out to change the article. That just seems far more reasonable than destabilizing the article and inciting a low-grade edit war. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WK, you're making distinctions such as "defines the subject the article is about." First, that's an incorrect use of "defines,"
Absolutely, not. From dictionary.com define:

4. to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of: to define property with stakes.

We are defining the topic the article is on; we are setting the boundaries of the article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
and secondly it's not clear what the difference would be between the subject and the article.
I say again, the article is a collection of text and images. The subject is the real world object, and the lead gives the criteria for knowing when you have an object or scenario that the rest of the article talks about. I don't think this information is usually repeated again in the body, and so I don't think that it's even a summary of the rest of the article. And it's always there in an encylopedia article, right upfront.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I take it from your recent flurry of interest in this page that you had a bad experience somewhere that you feel this guideline contributed to. Can you show us what it was? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If I write an article about SlimVirgin, then you are the subject of the article. The article would be a collection of words on a page, possibly with images, possibly with audio; clearly the article is not SlimVirgin. The lead would define who or what the term SlimVirgin refers to in the article sufficiently so as to disambiguate from other SlimVirgins there may be, perhaps on other websites or other kinds of things (perhaps there's a fish called a SlimVirgin who knows); and in this way define the scope of the article, what the article covers. Probably you would be defined as an editor of the English wikipedia or something.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Subject:

4. the theme of a sermon, book, story, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfkeeper (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying that SlimVirgin is an editor of the English Wikipedia isn't a definition. But that's a minor point. And the lead would give an overview of the article about SV, not an overview of the subject, SV, which would include lots of stuff not in the article. But that's another minor point. These are all minor points -- distinctions not worth making (especially if not accurate). SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The proximate problem was, I think, Network neutrality. I objected to what Wolfkeeper was arguing above, in part, because s/he seems to be advocating "Introduction" (or "Overview") sections immediately after the lead. (That particular article has been somewhat fast and furious, with a section immediately after the lead repeatedly incorporated into the lead and then removed.) I don't like secondary "Overview"s; the lead is the overview. That said, different topic areas present different demands. Marskell (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I agree that the overview is the lead, and shouldn't be in a section underneath the lead, but you're right that maybe in some topic areas it would make sense. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Secondary leads were and are not my intention, I was trying to solve the many issues there are with that particular article with respect to lead, but it didn't really work and I quickly reverted it. The difficulties with Network neutrality are that a) the term is used by different people in pretty different ways b) the size of the article is twice that of the ideal size, yet we should have no more than 4 paragraphs in the lead c) the lead guidelines say that the article lead should be a summary of the article, rather than the topic; that actually makes a big difference, not just for this article. All in all, the chances of this article meeting the letter of these guidelines is 0.0%; but I had and have absolutely no intention of changing the guidelines to match what can be achieved in the article, on the contrary we've tried hard to keep the article's lead to the general spirit of WP:LEAD.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It was more that I noticed inconsistencies within WP:LEAD while trying hard to work out what the best thing to do with Network neutrality.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation. That lead size seems fine (or even a tad longish) for 65 kilobytes including footnotes. If there are issues with definition, these can be raised in a separate section. Really, these things boil down to common sense, and this guideline should be applied with common sense too. One size can't fit all. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
There was one other gotcha we found with Network neutrality and it was pretty massive. It used be more like 80+k, and there was a problem that was specific to WP:LEAD that made life pretty horrible. Because the definition of the lead is in terms of summarising the article rather than trying to define the term and scope of the article, it meant that because we had a section on the legal implications of Network neutrality then we had to add that to the lead, and in a fairly big way. That pushed the number of sections in the lead up to maybe 6-8 or so. And to add insult to injury, some of the editors were trying to make it look like NN was purely and simply a legal term; and due to the emphasis and summary guidelines we didn't really have a leg to stand on to minimise this much, even though the emphasis was barely sourced.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The way we got around it was to move the legal section into another article which was mostly about the legal aspects in America, and then the lead of that article reflected those issues, and the remains of the article are more or less as you see now. The only reason I could do that was because the lead was so long, and the article was so long, so it had to split, and nobody could come up with a better way to split the article. After that, things quieted down.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
But I was mostly forced into doing that by WP:LEAD, and I could tell that it was a logical error in this project page at the root of it that was exacerbating our problems; it really does seem to be a bad idea to make the lead a summary of the rest of the article. It doubtless seems like an irrelevant point to most people here, but it's only when you try to use something in 'anger' that you find out what's really up.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If the lede is too long, that means you need to be more ruthless in summarizing. That may mean that each section of the article only gets one or two sentences in the lede - that's fine. The point is for the lede to be short and sweet. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That only works if everybody agrees on how much emphasis each point should get. They didn't, there were people who more or less didn't think any point except their own should go in the lead at all. Ultimately some degree of shared values are needed for an article to converge.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And I don't agree that simply being ruthless works in all cases either. Logically, summarisation is related to compression. It's not always possible to compress something further without losing the essence of what it is. You can't summarize down to one word, there's always a point above that where summarisation loses too much.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
If people disagree about content, then discussion is necessary. I have yet to see a situation where is was actually impossible to give a three-paragraph summary of the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You can discuss it all you want, but if there are widely varied values involved, then no convergence of the article text occurs. And convergence, rather than providing a reasonably decent definition and summary is most often the real problem.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section/Archive_5&oldid=1048355392"