Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

Advising editors to create an "Overview," "Introduction" or "Background" section

With this edit, I reverted Sm8900's creation of a passage about not creating an overly detailed lead and to instead create an "Overview," "Introduction" or "Background" section for more detailed aspects. With this edit, Ibadibam removed Sm8900's "In addition to the other considerations mentioned here, please note that the lead section should not be excessive in length. Ideally it should be one to three brief paragraphs." text, and moved Sm8900's other text lower.

I agree with Ibadibam cutting that piece and moving the other content lower. For one, the introduction of the WP:Lead guideline is clear that "[t]he lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview" and that "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." And the lower part of the guideline is clear that lead length depends. We don't need to be encouraging editors to create a lead that does not adequately summarize the article. I'm not sure that we should be advising editors to create an "Overview", "Introduction" or "Background" section; yes, these sections sometimes work, such as in the case of the Big Bang article (which still maintains its WP:Featured status), but the lead should be the introduction or overview, and I've seen editors create an "Overview", "Introduction" or "Background" section to make up for an inadequate lead. Even in the case of the Big Bang article, I recently questioned its lead length, and editors added on to that lead. Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: I see that Sm8900 also added an "overview" addition to the Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section essay that BullRangifer created. I'm not entirely against such sections; I just think that we need to proceed with this advice with caution, per what I stated above in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

hm, I appreciate your input on this. I will give this some thought, and then I may write again later with some other ideas on this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

well, I see that you said:

We don't need to be encouraging editors to create a lead that does not adequately summarize the article.

actually, once an editor takes the time to edit an article, they usually try to be complete. Most articles that I have seen can have the danger to have a lead which is too long, not one which is too short. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That's odd. I see far more articles where the lead is much too short, sometimes even at FAC. I think it is best to work on the assumption that most readers will actually only read the lead, and probably not all of it. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want an example of the benefits of a good overview section, then here is one good example, in my opinion. and here is another one. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

subsection break 1

Hi. I do appreciate all of your valuable input on this. Based on my last comment, I am going to restore the above-referenced text which I had added before regarding an "Overview" section. I will wait before doing so, in order to permit others to comment if anyone wishes to do so. I appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

created sub-section; feel free to reset your indents on your comments below.--Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I still object to you re-adding the section. This is a guideline page, and WP:Consensus should be achieved for disputed content before that content is added as part of the guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We should not start pushing a 3 para limit at all, anywhere. This may work fine for smaller subjects, but is too short for others. We have a long-standing 4 para recommendation & should not start confusing the issue. Overviews can be useful, but the language used was much too emphatic. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

hm, ok, fair enough. well, are there any guidelines which you would feel comfortable with? what if we made it more general, and simply said that the lead should not be of inordinate length; and that if it is, then an "overview" section should be set up? would that be more acceptable? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind saying they "may" be a useful tactic in some cases, but talk of "should" goes too far, imo. "Context" or "background" are useful just as often. Really the lead should always be the "overview". Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• These sections are rarely needed, just in the most complex articles. It's often a sign that WP:SUMMARY isn't being followed. I agree with Johnbod that insufficient rather than excessive leads are far more common. This is inevitably so, because people add material to articles constantly, but very, very few of them adjust the lead to compensate if the addition was significant enough that it needs compressed mention in the summary that is the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

hm, thanks for your ideas. I will give this some thought, and then I may post some proposals for that section. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to subsection

Could it be that something is wrong with the redirects to specific sections of the article? WP:SEAOFBLUE, WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, redirect to the lead of the article. Only after placing the cursor behind the URL display of my browser, i.e. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Sea_of_blue and hit enter it redirects to the section. Maybe it a local problem, so apologies if my feedback wasn't helpful. Rfassbind -talk 02:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I occasionally have this issue when using Chrome. Can't reproduce with Firefox. At any rate, the redirects all appear to be configured properly so it may be a client-side issue. Ibadibam (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a Chrome/Chromium bug. I get it, too, under the same circumstances.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Translations of topic

MOS currently reads:

If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses.

I don't think this gives enough guidance. French history, Geography of France, French cuisine, Languages of France, and French conjugation are "closely associated" with the French language, but they are descriptive terms, not names of particular entities (like, say, the French Revolution or the Court of Cassation (France)). The MOS should clearly say that we do not translate these parenthetically in the lead as "French history (Histoire de France)", "The geography of France (Géographie de France)", "French cuisine (Cuisine de France)", "Languages of France (Langues parlées en France)", "French conjugation (Conjugaison en français)", etc.

I believe that is our established usage, but an editor has recently started translating the subjects of cuisine articles (French cuisine, Greek cuisine, etc.), so it would be good to document this in the MOS. --Macrakis (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some clarification. I've removed plenty of pointless "X of Y" translations over the years. In my view, even terms "French Revolution" can be irrelevant for translation if the foreign and English terms are exact equivalents. I believe it's only interesting to translate if the term in the "original language" is somehow completely different. This might be difficult to explain as a guideline, though.

But I believe it ought to be quite easty to establish that articles about "X history" or "Y cuisine" shouldn't be translated.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Elements of the lead section

With this edit, GliderMaven made an addition to the Elements of the lead section. Binksternet partly reverted GliderMaven, as seen here. And so did I. The rest of GliderMaven's text is still there. I've started this discussion section in case anyone wants to discuss these aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We should say that the lead image is often larger than other ones. Binksternet seems to assume that the image will always be in an infobox, which of course is not always the case. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think so. And "upright=" works in infoboxes, see Actions_along_the_Matanikau.GliderMaven (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

How is it that the lead image is often larger, given what is stated at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size about the default size and generally sticking to that unless there is a good reason to increase the size? Or do we mean that people often make the lead images larger? I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images about this, pointing editors to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Alerted. Flyer22 (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Read on at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size - that also says "Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (displays at 300px based on the default thumbnail width of 220px, but may appear larger or smaller based on settings in preferences)." This is very commonly done, and rightly so. Plenty of FAs have this, and so on. We should make this page compatible with that one. They have had the discussion there, and really we do not need to repeat it, or alert them. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I know what else the guideline states; it was recently worked out on the talk page. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it relays "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences)." before going on to add "If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." I don't see that the lead image should necessarily be bigger than the other images, and I don't think we should give the impression that it should be bigger. It's more of a case-by-case matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We should reflect what has been done for many years in a high proportion of articles (with no infobox especially). The images page implicitly recognizes this, and that should be made more explicit, and echoed here. No one is suggesting it should be made compulsory. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The guideline at Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax#Size says that the upright parameter must be used with the frameless or thumb parameter. By far the greater majority of infobox images do not employ these parameters, so we should not present the upright parameter as a common or standard image option. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We absolutely should be encouraging the upright parameter. That way the image size is proportional to the user's chosen default thumbnail size rather than being set to some specific number of pixels that may be far out of proportion to the default thumbnail. If this parameter is unavailable in some image-displaying templates, fix those templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's too late to push the upright parameter, which I believe is shortly being phased out in the software (see the images page). It never caught on, and can produce grotesque results for those (like me) who use the maximum default thumbnail size (tall, thin images especially). The number of users who set a default, or even know they can, is pretty tiny anyway - you have to be logged in for one thing. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

At WP:EIS#Size, where it says 'the "upright" option must be used along with the "thumb" or "frameless" parameter', that's not a guideline - it's a software limitation. The upright option is ignored unless either one of thumb or frameless is also present. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is an accessibility thing; if people in general can't see the images well then they would set the default size bigger; but then the px overrides it, which is bad. If that problem can be sensibly defeated in infoboxes using frameless then we should be encouraging that in MOS.

The other issue is about style, should the lead image in an article usually be slightly bigger than normal?? It looks like that is the strong convention in fact.GliderMaven (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's possibly also worth noting that the Wikipedia Android app grabs the first image on a page and uses it as a banner at full screen width across the top of the article. Often this works well but sometimes it leads to dubious choices; for instance in Austria-Hungary the first image is the flag (civil ensign) in the infobox, probably not the best choice of an image representative of the whole article. So we might some explicit guidance, more than just the "relevant and technically well-photographed" wording that we already have, that the first image in an article should be chosen to be representative of the whole article. (This should apply regardless of whether it is actually in the first section of the article.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"representative and technically well-photographed" might work perhaps.GliderMaven (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That seems like an improvement to me. Of course, it doesn't have to be a photograph, so well-produced might be a better phrasing than well-photographed. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I had removed "representative" because of the reason stated in my edit summary, but, as that link shows, I also re-added it in a way that is not authoritative-sounding (typo fixes here). Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced by your edit. Also, do you actually mean authoritative; or authoritarian, because there is a difference. Most people don't normally have a problem with authoritative; but I wouldn't have said the previous text was especially authoritarian either, or no more than WP:MOS normally is anyway, whereas we're probably aiming for authoritative. ;) GliderMaven (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

When I reverted you, I stated, "Revert 'representative'; editors get into disputes about that all the time regarding images because they can't decide on what is representative." Have you not seen that be the case? I have. Time and time again I've seen editors argue over what is or not representative for an image. And since I work on anatomy articles, I'll go ahead and cite the Human penis and Human penis size articles as examples. Goodness knows many men have debated what penis should be the lead image there. Often, it is difficult to have an image that is representative of the entire topic or is generally representative. This is why WP:IMAGE LEAD states, "Image selection for other topics may be more difficult and several possible choices could be made." I changed your language because, unlike WP:IMAGE LEAD, it used the word should when WP:IMAGE LEAD is clear that selecting a representative image is not always possible. Yes, the word should is authoritative-sounding; I've assisted with enough Wikipedia guidelines and policies to know that. And I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that many editors treat guidelines as policies even when the guidelines are explicitly clear that they are making suggestions. We avoid the word should for guidelines unless we think it's best to use that wording. Given what WP:PERTINENCE states, what WP:IMAGE LEAD states, and what I have seen regarding editors argue over what is or isn't a representative image, I can't agree with using should in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

And while we're on the definition of authoritative, which is indeed the word I meant, let's look at some online dictionary definitions for it, as seen here, here, and here. As should be clear, I meant it in the sense of "having due authority; having the sanction or weight of authority." I meant that per what I stated in my "22:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)" post above. And what are synonyms for authoritative? Official, dogmatic and authoritarian (to name a few). Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no, you're really using it wrongly. Just because they're synonymous, doesn't mean they mean precisely the same thing. If they meant the same thing, then there wouldn't be two different words. Authoratitive nearly always comes from the 3rd definition of authority, which is about being a reliable source of knowledge of something. I'm not saying you're necessarily technically wrong, there may be some rare usage in that style, but you will not be as well understood, since that's a rare usage.GliderMaven (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that I'm using it wrongly, and dictionary sources do not prove your case that I am using it wrongly. Neither do scholarly sources. I invite you to cite sources stating or implying that I'm wrong, even though this discussion should not be about defining "authoratitive." Dictionary sources define "authoritative" as "commanding and self-confident; likely to be respected and obeyed," "having due authority; having the sanction or weight of authority," "having an air of authority; accustomed to exercising authority; positive; peremptory; dictatorial," "having the confident quality of someone who is respected or obeyed by other people," "having or proceeding from authority : official," and similar. It does not only, or even mostly, mean "reliable" or similar. I know that from reading a variety of scholarly sources in my lifetime. In fact, there was recently a similar discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, stating "If they meant the same thing, then there wouldn't be two different words." is not a solid argument, since there are a lot of things that have more than one name. In other words, there are many terms that mean the same exact thing. This is why WP:Alternative name exists. Either way, I did not state that authoritative and authoritarian are exactly the same thing. I was being clear that authoritarian is cited as a synonym for authoratitive, whether you consider that wrong or not. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

They are given different meanings in the Oxford English Dictionary: authoritarian and authoritative (n.b. there is no entry for authoratitive). Maybe it's one of those British/American things; in which case we should avoid using the word altogether, to prevent such confusion. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The OED is not the same thing as Oxford Dictionaries. But that oxforddictionaries.com source also states the following for the word authoratitive: "Commanding and self-confident; likely to be respected and obeyed: 'his voice was calm and authoritative' [...] Proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience: 'authoritative directives'." So, again, a dictionary gives more than just the "reliable" or "trustworthy" definition for the word authoratitive. And like GoneIn60 stated in the aforementioned film discussion, "WP:RS uses 'authoritative' in the context of being 'a widely accepted viewpoint' and mentions that being authoritative isn't a requirement of a reliable source. It states, 'If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article...', so there's a stipulation involved when the author's statement isn't an authoritative one." Either way, the word authoratitive is not what is at dispute with regard to text being added to the lead guideline; the way we use the word representative, and inclusion of the word should, is what I disputed, per what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I do see that the public.oed.com source I noted above states, though, "The dictionary content in Oxford Dictionaries focuses on current English and includes modern meanings and uses of words. Where words have more than one meaning, the most important and common meanings in modern English are given first, and less common and more specialist or technical uses are listed below." Since the "reliable" definition of authoratitive is commonly listed first in dictionaries, there is something to that. Flyer22 (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Allow fifth paragraph of lede?

Lately, articles like Napoleon and World War II have five paragraphs in intros. They are historical events. On the other hand, War in Afghanistan (2001–14) has five paragraphs, but the topic is at least a dozen years old and may have historical potential but probably nothing compared to other topics. Magna Carta is centuries old, but its article has four paragraphs in the intro and wouldn't allow the fifth. In other words, five-paragraph intros are seen in articles about complex topics, current or historical, but they might/may have also poorly sourced statements How do we deal with fifth paragraphs whether allowed or discouraged? Can we update the guideline to reflect this matter? --George Ho (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

George Ho, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 17#Four-paragraph lead and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 17#RFC on four paragraph lead; the latter was a big, heavily advertised WP:RfC about this just last year. I don't see that we another WP:RfC, especially one that is not as well-advertised. The four paragraphs standard is just that -- the usual standard. This is for reasons made clear in that aforementioned WP:RfC. The WP:Lead guideline in no way prohibits five paragraphs for the lead. When five paragraphs are justified, then five paragraphs for the lead is fine. Furthermore, WP:Lead is a guideline, not a policy. As was made clear in that WP:RfC, specifically noting five paragraphs will eventually lead an editor to want to mention six paragraphs, and perhaps more than six, in the guideline. We usually stop at four in our Wikipedia articles because it has been consistently found to be all that is needed for the vast majority of these articles, and because it has worked well for years. There was also this slight adjustment to the guideline. If we are having yet another big discussion about the length of the lead, I will heavily advertise it just like I did regarding the previous WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The latter RfC was just a proposal of wording changes. As for spread of word, I'll go for individual users first. As for former, if it was the RfC, I saw just one response. --George Ho (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

When you have over 4 million articles, the four paragraph guideline is very useful for 99 percent of them. However when you're dealing with major complex historical events that have produced thousands of serious books then clarity often requires more info than can be condensed into four paragraphs. Of course WP:LEAD it's only a general guideline, and the rule clearly says that exceptions are to be expected. ( Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions.) Rjensen (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

...Umm, okay. Common sense would apply to mostly complex historical topics, but it is used for also English writing. I had to eliminate unsource and/or undiscussed statements not in body context, like Euromaiden. Well, others before me eliminated bad writing from the lede. George Ho (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: George Ho, I mentioned one previous WP:RfC (not two). And that previous WP:RfC was about whether or not we should have the four-paragraph lead standard. Your WP:RfC is about allowing five paragraphs; your topic is already addressed in the previous WP:RfC. If you take the time to read it, you should see that. I don't understand how you are distinguishing the topics of these two WP:RfCs; the only difference is that you have specifically stated "Allow fifth paragraph of lede?" in the title of your WP:RfC and have made the WP:RfC more so about historical topics. That historical aspect makes your WP:RfC confusing. I mean, are you suggesting that we allow five paragraphs for the lead for historical topics, or for all topics? Whatever you mean, I've already been clear with you above that five paragraphs are allowed. As for "I'll go for individual users first.", if you mean contacting all the editors who participated in the previous WP:RfC so that we can all rehash this matter, that's not good enough. Since the WP:Lead guideline affects Wikipedia on a large scale, it's best that as many Wikipedia editors as possible participate in the discussion; that's why, for the previous WP:RfC, I contacted all of the WikiProjects listed at the end of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 17#Standard lead paragraph length. I would hope you don't mean contacting editors in a way that violates WP:Canvass. But judging by this alert, perhaps that alert is the type of alert you mean? Either way, it seems I might need to heavily advertise this WP:RfC in the same way I did the other one. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I made an addition in the OP. --George Ho (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that. But seeing your latest edits, for example, this, this, this and this, it seems that you are selectively notifying editors. Are those editors particularly relevant to the historical topics? Flyer22 (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Not just historical topics, but current topics too. However, I didn't want to mention current/recent topics in the OP unless you demand me to. I would be in favor of allowing one (or more) extra paragraph for historical topics if consensus agrees to it. George Ho (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

No need for this RfC at all, per above. At Magna Carta, you did not respond when asked what para 5 was supposed to cover, and now say "Okay, I am not pushing for extra paragraph". Johnbod (talk) 10:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• This is the relevant text: "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs. The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic." I see no particular reason to change it, because it does allow some leeway in cases where readers would expect a longer lead. Calidum 23:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Add See also heading to WP:MOS/lead project page

 Done
Can we add a See also heading to the bottom of this project page to include this essay created two years by editor BullRangifer? WP:CREATELEAD Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 02:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. One of the best essays on any topic. Hugh (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's require citations in the lead section

All of this has been said before and I have nothing to add to the conversation except repetition.

I wish to express my opinion that Wikipedia should require citations in the lead section. I do not wish to debate this right now, and probably do not want to discuss this further at this time because I anticipate that this perspective is controversial. I have another controversial opinion - I do not like the part of WP:Verifiability at Responsibility for providing citations which suggests that only "challenged" contributions to Wikipedia must have citations. Contrary to that, I would prefer to demand that everything in Wikipedia be matched with citations, excepting Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. I would prefer to presume that all substantive claims are "challenged", or otherwise just that challenges are not a prerequisite of requiring for citations. Following my interest in having citations for all substantive statements, I am here expressing a wish for citations in the leads of articles. I feel that substantive statements in the leads of articles without citations are especially problematic because of the protection they enjoy by virtue of being in the article lead. Here are the previous discussions on this topic from the archive here:

• Archive_17#Citations_in_lede_for_medicine - my own objection from September 2014
• Archive_16#Citations_in_lead - May 2013
• Archive_13#Citations_in_the_lead - June 2010
• Archive_4#Citations_in_the_Lead - September 2007
• Archive_3#Citations_in_the_lead_-_drafts - July 2007
• Archive_2#.22Lead_section.22_article_should_be_clear_on_citations_in_lead_sections - August 2006

I want this because I would like for Wikipedia to be a summary of other existing published sources, and for Wikipedia to match its content with a citation to the source from which it came. I regret when I see content in the lead which is not matched with citations anywhere in the article. I dispute that the current system is effective enough because leads often do not match the bodies of articles, and problematic information with no backing citations in the bodies of articles often persists in the lead in ways that would detected and not allowed if the same content were in the body of an article.

I do not think it would be a significant extra burden to require citations in the lead, and I further feel that doing so would raise the quality and public profile of Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that leads usually need citations. I'm not sure about requiring them, because if you're summarizing a large amount of material, there may not be a source that says precisely that thing. If you require a source for everything, it only takes one editor to force you to find a source for your summary, even when it's obvious that the summary is correct. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – as being redundantly redundant. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Recommend the approach in the CREATELEAD essay, which structures the lead as a summary of every section of the article. Then readers reading the lead can easily find the section containing the detail and citations they need. If the lead isn't summarising what follows, then the answer is to amend the lead, body, or both. A string of footnote markers after every sentence in the lead would be of little use; most citations belong in the main text, where it should be clear which citation is supporting which statement. Imposing a "requirement" that (with 5M articles) plainly isn't going to happen only devalues those requirements that really are required: Noyster (talk), 10:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I usually include citations in the lead for topics that are contentious or can certainly be contentious, such as the Sexual orientation or Clitoris article. But when it comes to an article like Titanic (1997 film), I don't see a need to add citations in the lead (though I once did). This is because not only is the content that is stated in the lead of the Titanic (1997 film) article well-known, but it is easy to find lower in the article. I think it was Betty Logan (a WP:Film editor) who removed the citations from that article's lead. If not her, it was someone else. That stated, WP:Med, which is a WikiProject Bluerasberry and I are commonly involved in (I'm a WP:Film and WP:Med editor), are generally for having citations in the lead of medical articles, and they have made valid points on that; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 9#References in the lead. The discussion was advertised, and those who opposed were mostly non-WP:Med editors. As for the WP:BURDEN policy that Bluerasberry takes issue with, that policy is covering WP:Blue ("You don't need to cite that the sky is blue") matters by making it clear that we should be concerning ourselves more so with content that is likely to be challenged or has been challenged when it comes to sourcing text. But any significantly experienced Wikipedia editor knows that it's usually the case that almost everything in Wikipedia articles require a citation, since people (usually other Wikipedia editors) so commonly challenge what is in a Wikipedia article and since so many things are not WP:Blue matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:Burden also states, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." And it cites the WP:Preserve policy, a policy that is too often ignored. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: If it fails, this proposal shall be put into WP:perennial proposals. George Ho (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Parts of an article's text that summarize what's in reliable sources should cite those sources, of course. Parts of an article's text that summarize what's in other parts of the article should not cite those other parts of the article, because we should not pretend that Wikipedia is itself a reliable source; therefore they should not have citations. Parts of an article's text that neither summarize reliable sources nor summarize other parts of the article should not exist. Well-written leads should consist primarily of summaries of other parts of the article, and should therefore not have sources. Exceptions should be made, of course, for material in the lead that is presented only in the lead, for whatever reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - typically, citations should not be needed in the lead (assuming the lead is actually a summary of the article body). Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with David Eppstein's analysis. Also I prefer for the lead to remain readable as text. If citations were required in it, it would be even more uglily peppered with superscribed digits than the article text, which apparently the nominator would also like to pepper further. On that issue, please note that we can't base policy compliance, or anything much, on Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, which is an essay. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC).
• Oppose. If substantive content in the lead does not exist in the body, then adding more rules won't solve the problem. That content should not be there and should be, per WP:Preserve, moved to the body, and there it should have a source. I do favor citations in the lead in some situations, but not because it should be "required", but to avoid continual conflicts. Controversial statements in the lead will be the target of continual attacks, and then it's practical to simply add at least one strong ref, using one of the refs already used in the body. I often add a hidden editorial note telling editors that the sources are in the body. Sometimes I'll even have refs within that hidden note. That usually stops attempts to demand sourcing. You can read my other thoughts about this in my essay. Another option which is not obtrusive is to use lead "section references", which are not the same thing as what we're talking about here. Check it out. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - As others have said, lead should summarize body, body should be cited as appropriate, and there is nothing gained by redundant citation. In my opinion there is already too much redundant citation in the lead, and making it a requirement would be a step in the wrong direction. The solution to the stated problem already exists in p&g. I'm dreaming of a white Christmas. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per "I do not wish to debate this right now". If someone wants to propose a change they should be prepared to debate it. Making a controversial change without being prepared to discuss why it is controversial is anathema to a healthy self governing community. ϢereSpielChequers 19:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sometimes references are appropriate for the lead, particularly for statements that are likely to be challenged, but they should not be required. The purpose of citations is to allow readers to verify the content of an article. If each and every "substantive statement" were to have a citation, that might have the unintended effect of making an article harder to verify instead of easier. For instance, general statements in a scientific article can often be attributed to one or two standard reference textbooks. There is not generally a need to supply specific citations in those cases. See WP:SCICITE#Uncontroversial knowledge. Sławomir
  Biały 14:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• oppose I think the problems described by the op can be solved without having to require citations in the lead. ~Awilley (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Foreign language

As far as the use of foreign language is concerned, I think it should be mentioned that for "technical terms" originated in another language, the equivalent can be included in the lead section. The examples are: Thrownness, Infinite qualitative distinction and World disclosure. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is the example already given not sufficient? The average reader of this page has no idea what "Thrownness", or the other examples, even mean, much less that they might be examples of this guideline. Sławomir
Biały 21:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that those examples should have the foreign equivalent in the lead sentence, as they do now. The etymology is far from the most important aspect of those articles and shouldn't be made so prominent. So putting them forward as examples of best practice seems misguided. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I provided those examples to specify when (not how) we should give the foreign equivalent. For example, should we give the German equivalent for Free association and Unconscious mind or not? How are they different from Infinite qualitative distinction? --‍Ali Pirhayati (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how they're different. Why would knowing how free association is different from infinite qualitative distinction be relevant for a manual of style? Sławomir
Biały 01:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

In what conditions should we add the foreign equivalent? The "manual of style" does not give any hint about this question. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That really seems beyond the scope of a simple MOS. Editors need to use their own judgement and, if it is unclear what to do, then discussion. In the examples you gave, it's arguable that the foreign language translation really doesn't belong in the first sentence ("Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology.") It does not seem worthwhile codifying it as a best practice. Sławomir
Biały 01:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought the role of Wikipedia guidlines is to prevent users from using "their own [ad hoc] judgement" and to ensure uniformity and lawfulness! --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not really possible to eliminate all thought from Wikipedia editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The guideline already says that etymology should not be included. There can be exceptions to this under WP:IAR, where editors familiar with a subject believe that it is important. But examples like "thrownnes" etc., are not typical. Sławomir
Biały 14:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The guidelines already say that foreign equivalents should not be included just to show etymology. Making an exception for technical terms would just cause confusion. Kaldari (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Image size discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)