Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

Pronunciations and lead clutter

Discrepancy in page....conflicting advice? We have advice then latter an example that is the opposite of the advice and is also seen on another MoS page that is not actually done in the article anymore.

MOS:LEADCLUTTER = Avoid cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthetical containing items like alternative spellings and pronunciations: these can make the sentence difficult to read. This information should be placed elsewhere.

MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE = Francesco Petrarca (Italian: [franˈtʃesko peˈtrarka]; July 20, 1304 – July 19, 1374), commonly anglicized as Petrarch (/ˈpiːtrɑːrk, ˈpɛ-/), was a scholar and poet of Renaissance Italy, who was one of the earliest humanists.

And

MOS:DUALPRON = Venezuela (/ˌvɛnəˈzweɪlə/; Spanish: República Bolivariana de Venezuela, pronounced [reˈpuβlika βoliβaˈɾjana ðe βeneˈswela])....

Actual article style Venezuela, officially the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,...

Shoukd we say something like ". Foreign-languages, pronunciations and acronyms may belong in a note to avoid WP:LEADCLUTTER."

Example:

Y Sweden, formally the Kingdom of Sweden, is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.
N Sweden,(Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ^ⓘ) formally the Kingdom of Sweden,(Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ^ⓘ) is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.

Note

Moxy🍁 11:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I would support enshrining the possibility of footnoting. Remsense ‥ 论 17:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this already adequately covered in the guidance?

"It is preferable to move pronunciation guides to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence."

The proposal to use the word "may" seems like a step back. Perhaps the solution is to fix the examples that appear elsewhere so that they conform to the guidance here. CUA 27 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Grammar

Which is the correct intro style? Example, the Josh Shapiro article:
A) "...who has served as the 48th governor of Pennsylvania since 2023."
or
B) "...who has served since 2023 as the 48th governor of Pennsylvania."
GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Both would clearly be acceptable in the abstract, but at the moment B reads as off-kilter to me. Is this something that varies by region? (It reminds me of the typical order of clauses in Chinese, which I suppose makes up for the awkwardness a bit.) Remsense ‥ 论 17:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

He probably is the only governor since 2023, not the 48th. So I prefer B. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair point, though I'm sure you'd agree that as syntactical ambiguities go, this one is exceedingly unlikely to confuse. Remsense ‥ 论 17:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Though I knew intuitively which branch of the ambiguity to take, the ambiguity struck me instantly. But my mind works like that. Whenever I hear a reporter in the field signing off, "In Minneapolis, I'm Joan Foster", I think to myself, "Who are you when you aren't in Minneapolis?" Largoplazo (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

That's so interesting, because it took me two beats even after reading Bruce's comment to get it. The differing views here are pretty surprising to me. I still firmly prefer A, but I get the positive case for B. Remsense ‥ 论 18:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Let us not forget C) "...who has since 2023 served as the 48th governor of Pennsylvania." Folly Mox (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

B, as there haven't been 48 governors since 2023, and A could be read that way. Or D, similar to C except I'd keep the "has" with the "served": "... who, since 2023, has served as the 48th ...". Largoplazo (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

With the caveat that I'm aware it's entirely a matter of taste, option D leaves me stumbling over all those commas.

Edited to add: – in a moment of self-awareness – almost all my unwrought talkspace / projectspace comments are absolutely infested with commae and related symptoms of run-on sentence disorder (especially parentheticals). Not sure why the two commata bracketing since 2023 above get my bristles twisted. Folly Mox (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Both are grammatical, but (B) is preferable because it's unambiguous, as Largoplazo and Bruce leverett have said. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it truly just a me thing that B reads prosodically as if it's tripping over itself to a degree that is borderline distracting? Not a rhetorical question, since I'd like to adjust my habits accordingly. Remsense ‥ 论 19:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Option B does also feel to me like a very deliberately tight coupling of the perfective with the verb, as if waiting to become Latin. I didn't see the ambiguity in A on my own, but got it immediately once pointed out. I legit like my two suggestions of C and the "not even similar to any of the above" reword downthread, but I'm weird and have unpopular opinions. Folly Mox (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

To unaddress the question with an orthogonal reword tangent, is Shapiro's ordinal position in the Pennsylvanian gubernatorial sequence really necessary in the lead sentence? It's in the infobox, which feels adequate to me. I don't read a lot of AmPol biographies though, so I don't know if this is a common formula or not.

And like, doesn't the fact that he's governor of a US state make it obvious that he's a politician? One potential rewrite might be Joshua David Shapiro (born June 20, 1973) is an American lawyer and current governor of Pennsyl­vania, taking office in 2023. Ends kinda clunkily, like the mic drop that happens out of clumsiness rather than intention, but BLUF all the way. Folly Mox (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

As a general principle, everything in the infobox should be somewhere in the main article text, and preferably in the lead. If being 48th is important enough to be in the infobox, it is important enough to be in the lead. If you think being 48th is not lead-worthy, then don't include it in the infobox where it is if anything even more prominent than the lead. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that we should rely on sources for the question of whether to include "48th". I don't see ordinal numbers of Pennsylvania governors in my reading, so I would drop it, both in the infobox and in the lead, but I may be missing something.

Agree that "American", "politician", and "lawyer" are all just unctuous nothingness here. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I take it, then, that the consensus is that both are acceptable. AlsoWukai (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Appears to be the case. I won't revert you anymore on any of those bios, concerning the topic-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Josh Shapiro is merely an example. This is about intros on all politician bios. GoodDay (talk)

@AlsoWukai: would you please stop making the changes, until a consensus is achieved here? GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I do agree with GoodDay here that the forumlaic sentence-head "(On / at / in) (date / timespan)," copyedits replacing chronological markers elsewhere in the sentence are: pretty tedious, certainly unnecessary, and often leave the affected sentence feeling less naturally prosey, as if had been effortlessly adapted from a list item or tabular data (or is intended to be scraped into such).

Not sure if that genre of change comprises all the edits in dispute, but they were quite common in my arbitrary sample. Folly Mox (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I be the naïve one that questions the benefits of adhering to a formulaic opening sentence structure? I see the appeal on, say, the letter and element pages (cf. W, Tungsten) but doing it with biographies seems a bit much? Remsense ‥ 论 02:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This is about all politician bios. US senators, US representatives, etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

See this discussion about Trump's intro. It's related to this topic. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to concisely summarize what's notable about the subject, and the first sentence, which may be your only chance to engage the reader, should usually focus on one notable thing. In the case of Shapiro, he is mostly notable for being the governor of Pennsylvania. All his other notable activities don't add up to a fraction of that. So, adhering to MOS:FIRSTBIO, one goes by a straight path to a sentence that just says that Shapiro has been the governor of Pennsylvania since 2023. For anything beyond that, you need a very good excuse. In particular his background as a lawyer is not notable to nearly the degree that his position as governor is notable, so including "lawyer" in the first sentence is just a distraction. This is the rationale for MOS:LEADCLUTTER. Also the words "American politician" here are just soporific. When you are about to say the he is the governor of Pennsylvania, it is crazy to interject that he is an American politician. You wouldn't do that in talking to someone, you shouldn't do it in writing either.

Trump on the other hand, is notable for many things. So I certainly am not surprised at the length and complexity of the discussion linked to above.

I agree that, in principle, there is no virtue in using a "cookie-cutter" approach to composing lead sentences for bio articles about politicians. But MOS:FIRSTBIO and other advice about the lead give you so many requirements and constraints, that for politicians at moderate to high level like Shapiro, who are not already notable for something else besides their current position, it may well seem like their lead sentences are annoyingly similar to one another. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

So which do you support, "A" or "B"? GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Although I commented on A and B, I don't think the difference between them is important enough for you to lose sleep over. I would say that starting an RfC would be overkill. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Pending RFC

I'm considering opening an RFC on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Seriously? Don't you have better things to do? The difference, in any case, strikes my as minor or rather absent – though personally I'd probably tend to use A, I'd consider B perfectly acceptable too. Nothing to lose sleep over, for sure. Gawaon (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

(Now noticing I have essentially repeated Bruce leverett's statement from above without even having read it. Well, I can only agree with him.) Gawaon (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

That would be making a mountain out of a molehill. Largoplazo (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

And I suspect would end with a "let editors use whichever they prefer". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, I will not bother with it. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

LEADREL: Genres and typological classifications

I've always assumed and inferred this, however, the topic recently came up in a discussion in which another editor stated that a genre term could only be mentioned in the lead in proportion to its emphasis in the body. In MOS:LEADREL we exclude "taxonomic names" but should this be clarified to read "taxonomic names, definitional terms, and genres" or "taxonomic and typological names"? The reality is, we already make this exclusion, anyway. It's just written in a very oblique and less than ideal way. A few examples from our GA articles:

• Golden Sun: The Lost Age mentions in the lead that it's a "role-playing game" which is not in relative proportion to the one sentence treatment that gets in the body.
• Three Horses Beer mentions in the lead it's a pale lager which is not in relative proportion to the one sentence treatment that gets in the body.
• Dawn of the Dead (2004 film) mentions in the lead it's an action horror film which is not subsequently mentioned at all in the body.

Chetsford (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I think these are already covered by the "apart from basic facts" clause. Gawaon (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, completely. However, I have now twice run into cases (most recently today) where editors assert that basic facts do not include genres. Chetsford (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Could you link them? Maybe the editors had specific reasoning. — W.andrea (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to do that as I don't want to unduly bother the editors of uninvolved discussions by bringing them here and, in any case, I'm not certain the specifics of those cases matter to the larger question. If there's no dispute that "basic facts" includes genres, what is the hesitation for updating LEADREL to clarify that which already exists? It seems like we're just correcting a scrivener's error. Chetsford (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant provide links to the discussions, not notify the editors. — W.andrea (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

As well as This [...] should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead [...]. — W.andrea (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

This discussion was sparked on whether a particular controversial and partisan news source should be classified as advocacy news in the first sentence, which is a valid classification. I oppose this classification because sources little mention that the source is advocacy news when discussing it, while the sources of these works brought up by Chetsford often mention their genre while discussing them. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, "advocacy news" doesn't seem to be a "genre" in the usual sense of the word, and I can well understand editors who are sceptical about prominently making such a classification. If it's added, it'll have to be well sourced and it certainly can't be justified by pointing to LEADREL alone. Gawaon (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. Nothing is being operationalized through this discussion, it is purely for abstract, future reference.

There was no dispute in this case between Aaron Liu (the other editor) and myself about the correctness of the term "advocacy news", only if LEADREL covered typologies or not. The discussion that originated this question is 100% and completely dead, no consensus formed, and nothing discussed here is going to change that. It is purely and entirely an abstract question. (This is part of the reason I was hesitant to link the discussion that inspired the question as I feared editors would misinterpret it as a practical question. There is no praxis to this question. The discussion that inspired it is over and decided.)

The question is abstract and unrelated to any extant discussion: does LEADREL exclude only taxonomies (which Aaron is correct about, in that this is the only thing it specifically states is exempt), or does it by implication also exclude typologies (such as, for instance, film genres, architectural styles, climate zones, etc.)? Chetsford (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It covers, explicitly rather than implicitly, "basic facts". That surely will tend to include film genres, architectural styles, and something like "news website". "Advocacy news", as it'll likely be contested, seems much less likely to be included. To give another example: "horror film" is a film genre and as such a basic fact, "propaganda piece" maybe not so much. Gawaon (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Gawaon's position. Contentious claims require sources. I believe that Hamilton (musical) is an opera, and there are sources that agree with me, but sources overwhelmingly do not mention the opera status when mentioning Hamilton. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, whether something is or is not a valid typological classification to apply to "article X" would have to be decided through separate discussion at the article; I also agree. But the mere idea that any typological classifications in any article -- on occasions when there is a consensus as to their validity (i.e. not Hamilton) -- cannot be invoked in the lead except in proportion to the breadth of their discussion in the body is something we can clarify here. Chetsford (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying that opera status should be excluded because the body doesn't discuss that it's an opera, I'm saying that it should be excluded because sources overwhelmingly do not say it's an opera. I think that's a useful litmus test for the presence of controversy around a classification. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

To me it sounds reasonable that the "relative proportion" rule does apply to contested facts. If it's called "advocacy news" in the lead, I think readers will reasonably expect a paragraph (or more) in the body expanding on what makes it so, who called it so, etc. Gawaon (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

If it's contested, it shouldn't be in the lead to begin with. In the example you cite, "advocacy news" should not appear in the lead in the first place as there's no consensus to include it. Fortunately, however, my question doesn't deal with contested facts. It's about uncontested typological classifications (e.g. can we call Handel a Baroque composer in the lead if there is absolute agreement he was a Baroque composer across Wikipedia and throughout the universe) and whether those can be included as opposed to only taxonomic names. Chetsford (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

"It covers, explicitly rather than implicitly, "basic facts". That surely will tend to include film genres, architectural styles, and something like "news website"." So no one objects if I edit this to read: "taxonomic names" --> "taxonomic names and typological classifications"? Chetsford (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done [1] Chetsford (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

How lists should start

Under MOS:BEGIN, it refers to List of environmental issues, which starts off with "This is an alphabetical list..." However, a few sections down, in MOS:THISISALIST, it says explicitly,

if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs ...". A clearer and more informative introduction to the list is better than verbatim repetition of the title.

Is there a consensus on how to approach this? Theadventurer64 (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is at MOS:THISISALIST, so List of environmental issues was just a bad example. I went ahead and rephrased it:

Environmental issues are harmful aspects of human activity on the biophysical environment. This alphabetical list ...

— W.andrea (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

non-English language guidance for infobox

The guidance from the MOS as currently written at MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV says:

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

I have seen some dispute about whether or not an article should include a single non-English language equivalent name in the infobox. Please see the example of Yehezkel Chazom. This is an example of a biographical article where יחזקאל חזום is the non-English language equivalent which per MOS guidance "may be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses", what I am seeking community consensus on is what the guidance is for including a single non-English language equivalent name, in this case יחזקאל חזום in the infobox, just beneath the English language name of Yehezkel Chazom.

I believe that this is a constructive and helpful edit which does not obstruct the visibility or readability of the infobox in any way, and that does not violate any of the policy on redundancy as it only is adding the single mention of a non-English language equivalent to the infobox. If there are multiple languages that would be appropriate for a biographical page (or other article which is closely associated with a non-English language) then only the non-English language which is most closely associated with the subject matter would be advised to be included.

I would like to just clear this up and have a short one or two lines which adds something to the effect of the following to the MOS guidance:

"If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single equivalent name in another language may be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. The same non-English equivalent name from a non-English language may also be included in the infobox, displayed just once beneath the English language title." Iljhgtn (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I would put it shorter: "... may be included in the lead sentence (usually in parentheses) as well as in the infobox." Gawaon (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

May does not mean should or must. In {{infobox biography}} there is a native_lang parameter for use here - not by using a <br> in the name parameter. GiantSnowman 09:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Correct, "may" means that you may, as in, you may or may not. And yes, some infobox parameters have a "native_lang" parameter and when that exists I do not use the <br> option, but others do not, and in those cases in order to visually have the name appear, the <br> is sometimes used. I am seeking further guidance though on whether or not this may be done as condoned by MOS central guidance. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, nobody has suggested anything else so far, so it looks like a "yes" to me. Gawaon (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Deployed your shorter suggestion then. Please change it if I did not get it right, or if any changes need to be made to any other parts of the primary article then in order to reflect this. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

No, this is clearly not a consensus. GiantSnowman 18:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. If you think so, you could have sad it before! Gawaon (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

To what specifically do you object? Your earlier comment didn't read like an objection to me. Gawaon (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I still believe that without a reasoned objection based in policy, then the update should be made along the lines of what @Gawaon suggested for shorter wording. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no purpose in having it in the infobox, which for footballers is intended to be a brief summary of a person's career only. GiantSnowman 19:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The purpose is to show only one instance of the most prominent foreign language equivalent of the subject, just beneath the English. Personally, I find this to be really interesting as sometimes you can then learn from the placement of the text which characters are which in terms of the most likely match and then you are able to learn a bit more about the world. To me, that is the purpose of an encyclopedia. To learn and expand our understanding and our knowledge of various subjects which interest us.

If there are more than one foreign language equivalent, only one need be permitted by this MOS adjustment, so you would not have Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic for example. That would begin to get more cluttered and so should rightfully be excluded. It is almost always fairly obvious which foreign language is the most dominant one for an individual, though I suppose when it is not clear, no foreign language equivalent could be added in those rare instances. @GiantSnowman with this added context and clarification, would it now be acceptable to you for this basic addition to be made? Also, if not, is there suggested language that you may wish to add, subtract, or change in order to better form a solid consensus? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It's fine only in the lede, no? GiantSnowman 19:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Infoboxes typically capture and summarize the lede/lead. If the foreign language equivalent is warranted in the lead, then it stands to reason that a single mention in the infobox is not excessive or unnecessary. Any additional languages beyond a single foreign language equivalent would be excessive however and I would be arguing on your side if that were ever to come up. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

No, they summarise the article as a whole. GiantSnowman 21:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Which would include this single foreign language equivalent. One foreign language equivalent, no more. Like the lead has very often (though sometimes more, but then additional would move beyond what could be called a "summary"). Iljhgtn (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Despite being trilingual in my opinion....non-english characters should be excluded from the lead all together. They're probably the biggest deterrent/obstacle for getting readers to read on. If at all notable foreign-languages, pronunciations and acronyms should be in an etymology section or in a note to avoid WP:LEADCLUTTER. Moxy🍁 05:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

MOS:IBP states the basic paradox: The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Bruce leverett (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

How do we parse what should and should not be included? Iljhgtn (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I for one believe a single instance of ONE foreign language equivalent being stated as "may" (not must) be included in the infobox if truly not overdoing it..... Iljhgtn (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This is YOUR personal opinion. Maybe ask yourself why all these articles don't already have the foreign name in the infobox... GiantSnowman 20:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I have seen both. Thus, it would be helpful for there to be clear MOS guidance. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

If the MOS guidance is such that it should be REMOVED whenever it appears in the infobox, that too would be helpful. I am seeking clarification on whether it MAY or may not be a permissible or constructive edit. Yes, MY personal opinion, for the many reasons already cited above, is that it is in fact helpful, useful, and instructive. You disagree. You have yet to present reasons WHY, but you disagree nonetheless. That is your prerogative. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Well as Bruce has highlighted, MOS:IBP would suggest not including it. GiantSnowman 22:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

It says, "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Some infoboxes need to use more than a handful of fields, but information should be presented in a short format, wherever possible, and exclude unnecessary content".

I think this would suggest that more than one foreign language equivalent would be "unnecessary", however, this is "short format" and allows for the infobox to "serve its purpose" of "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Since the foreign language equivalent which is best suited for a foreign language subject may only have one most salient foreign language, how is that not compliant with this guidance from MOS:IBP. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Should do what is best for accessibility for our readers.... does having foreign languages help in understanding to our English readers or does it impede reading a sentence.

NAlbert Einstein (/ˈaɪnstaɪn/, EYEN-styne;German: [ˈalbɛʁt ˈʔaɪnʃtaɪn] ^ⓘ; 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist who is best known for developing the theory of relativity.

YAlbert Einstein (14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist who is best known for developing the theory of relativity

Moxy🍁 22:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Moxy this discussion is only around whether or not a single instance of a foreign language equivalent would be permissible beneath the English language name or title in the infobox only, not in the lead which is already permissible and clearly spelled out according to MOS guidance. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I realize that this discussion might have been better suited to be taking place at the talk page pertaining to MOS:IBP. Though, here it would be helpful to spell out clearly if ONE mention of the foreign language equivalent would be acceptable in the INFOBOX only as a MAY (not "must", "should", or some other synonym). Iljhgtn (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

What's being demonstrated is what is best for our readers.... do we simply add it to the info box.... and regurgitate what's in prose in the lead or do we just have a note and leave the info box nice and clean and in the language that our readers can understand. Moxy🍁 22:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:EN, "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article"

You are arguing against deeply established consensus which I am not even arguing at this moment. I am simply referring to the infobox as a side matter. Not the "first line of the article" which already does allow for the foreign language equivalent for subject matter where that is most relevant. In the case of Albert Einstein, I would agree it should not be on there, but mostly because German and English use the same characters anyway, so it is not even a good example. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to as we have MOS:LEADCLUTTER "Avoid cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthetical containing items like alternative spellings and pronunciations: these can make the sentence difficult to read. This information should be placed elsewhere like in a note to avoid clutter' and MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV "Do not include non-English equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names, as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability. Do not include non-English equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology. Non-English names should be moved to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence". Is there some sort of other protocol that is the opposite of this and we should try to consolidate our recommendations? Moxy🍁 22:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not inconsistent with what I am saying. If anything, we are speaking past one another. I am not arguing for the inclusion of a foreign language equivalent in the lead, rather, in the infobox, and only on subjects where they are clearly in a non-English speaking country. Munavvar Kalantarli is an example, in this case the infobox has ONE mention of his foreign language name (in Azerbaijani) beneath the English name in the lead, and then ONE entry again in the infobox of the same... @GiantSnowman took issue with this practice on a few articles which I had edited, and I wanted to check and see what the clear MOS guidance is for the INFOBOX ONLY and ONLY in instances which are very clearly foreign non-English native language in their primary subject matter. I hope this makes sense now for what I am asking for simple MOS clarification on. I completely agree with you on preventing LEADCLUTTER. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)