User:Jwinius/Style

Development of the alternative lead section
This page is to show how the alternative lead section, the "snakeskin" format, was developed. As stated on my user page, I started out following WP:LEAD and all of the articles I produced to begin with looked like this:


 * Example 0 - Basic.

None of this format was my idea: I was just using the same style that other editors were using. I was soon concerned, however, that by using bold type face only for that first common name, we were inadvertently making it look as though that name was "more official" than any other common names. So, for a while, we did this:


 * Example 0a - Idem, all common names bold.

However, this still did nothing to counter another criticism: that when visitors clicked on a common name wikilink in some other article and ended up on a page with one of our scientific names, they would not be able to find the common name quickly enough and would be confused -- the experience was said to be jarring. Apparently, those common names in Example 0 and Example 0a just didn't stand out enough, and my feeling was that there was a grain of truth to this criticism. On top of that, with so much use of bold type face, things were looking more messy and the really relevant information was becoming more obscured.

As I see it, the root of the problem is that the WP:MOS guidelines, and thus our subsequent variations, were not developed with scientific names in mind. Rather, they were developed for articles that use a common name in the title. Therefore, if we ever wanted to see a change in policy in favor the use of scientific names, I figured that a different lead section format would necessary. Unfortunately, this would mean a departure from the MOS guidelines, but hopefully it would fix all of the problems mentioned above and so be worth it. In my first attempt I came up with these formats:


 * Example 1 - Common names list above intro.
 * Example 1a - Id

I reasoned that if the common names were up top and always in the same place, everyone would have the best chance of finding them in the shortest time possible. And because you can list several common names together, you didn't have to choose one over any others in cases like this where several common names are popular. Also, this was a way to place several common names on a relative equal footing (yes, one is always first, but they're still all up top).


 * Example 1b - Idem, with species name bold.

I'm not sure I like Example 1b as much, because it seems to weaken the bold emphasis on "Common names" (in my opinion, bold type face should be used very sparingly).

If the list of common names becomes too long, you can let it wrap around like this:


 * Example 1c - Common names wrapping around.

But, some people, including myself, may not think that looks as elegant. Here are some solutions:


 * Example 1d - Short list above intro. Complete list in separate Common names section.
 * Example 1e - The horizontal line.
 * Example 1f - A combination of 1d and 1e, with bold typeface for the species name.
 * Example 1g - Same as 1f, but with two blank lines.

I could live with any of these. Example 1g was used for over a year: it's elegant and efficient, and it makes a clear separation between the list of common names at the top and the article introduction below it.

On the other hand, there are people who have argued that a common names list has no place being above the intro (it being too much of a break from tradition, I guess), and that the better place for it is only in a separate Common names section below. I guess they mean like this:


 * Example 2 - Separate Common names section.
 * Example 2a - Idem, no common names in the intro.

I don't like either of these, firstly because Example 2a still elevates one common name too much over the others, and secondly because neither does anything to address the "jarring experience" problem that readers may experience when they are unfamiliar with the scientific name in the title and unable to find any common names fast enough.

In September 2007, Tim Q. Wells came up with a version that looks much like a dablink:


 * Example 3 - Dablink style.

This is the current format. It may have the advantage of being able to counter the "clumsy" argument, which has been leveled against Example 1g. I recognized that it was a better solution, so after Tim converted all the Viperinae articles, I did the rest.

Here's some possible alternatives:


 * Example 3a - Dablink style, with horizontal line beneath it.
 * Example 3b - Dablink style, with no common names label.
 * Example 3c - Dablink style, with no common names label and a horizontal line beneath it.
 * Example 3d - Dablink style, with no common names label and an extra blank line beneath it.
 * Example 3e - Dablink style, with no bold typeface.
 * Example 3f - Idem, but with a horizontal line beneath it.
 * Example 3g - Dablink style, with bold type face inverted.
 * Example 3h - Idem, but with a horizontal line beneath it.

Here's a completely different idea: use the name section of the taxobox for the list instead. If there are more names than would fill only two lines of a standard-with taxobox, add a link to the common names section, like this:


 * Example 4 - List of common names in the taxobox title.