Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

LEADLANG clarification
I noticed something in MOS:LEADLANG that could do with some clarification.


 * 1) If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name may be included in the lead sentence.
 * 2) Do not include foreign 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.
 * 3) Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology.
 * 4) Foreign-language names should be moved to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence.
 * 5) Separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas....

While point one to four complement each other, point 5 seems to be open to interpretation: why mention "separate languages" if we're only supposed to include "a single foreign language" in the lead sentence? When dealing with multiple languages, do we keep the single foreign language equivalent that is closely associated with the subject and move the others to a footnote or do we move all of them to a footnote? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of a lead that is well done and conforms with the guidance. There is a "single foreign language" plus the English language, with a semicolon between the two "separate languages".
 * Geneva (Genève ) is the second-most populous city in Switzerland (after Zürich) and the most populous of the French-speaking Romandy.


 * Does that help answer your first question? CUA 27 (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This confirms what I always understood it to mean, i.e., keep the single foreign language equivalent that is closely associated with the subject in the lead sentence and move the others to a footnote; however, I'm not convinced that everyone will interpret it the same way (given the cited Genghis Khan example). Clarifying this, maybe with the Geneva example, would remove any possible misinterpretation of the recommendations. M.Bitton (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the wording could be more clear, but also feel it would be unnecessary to have it be a wording as such. Depending on context, There are other factors, mainly the length of alternative names, where one could squeeze in two names and have it be an equally elegant solution (footnotes aren't zero-cost in a layout, even if they're usually near-zero).
 * Tell me if I'm wrong, but Chinese is nearly the worst-case scenario for this: both script and romanization are always necessary, it is often preferred to include both simplified and traditional forms, there are often multiple relevant romanizations... all for text that a supermajority of our audience cannot read and will likely find a teensy net negative for their reading experience, much as I love looking at Chinese characters all day. Remsense  诉  05:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

pinging those who edited the article recently. your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I usually put everything in the note.... simply to make the first sentence as legible as possible.....but using the example above in the info box. If our readers have to read a sentence multiple times for a meaning behind it.... chances are we've lost that reader. Moxy 🍁 16:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was pinged, but the only edit I've made to the article was a minor grammar improvement. I'm in favor of putting it all in the note. I find IPA rather useless and cluttery, actually, and I would be happiest if those were relegated to footnotes, but the community here seems enamored with including IPA in lead sentences wherever possible. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So, I am not the only one who doesn't like the IPA clutter. Donald Albury 18:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I share your views. Put it all in a note. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, please! IPA is useful for rare/foreign words and many names. Anyway, that wasn't the question in the first place, was it? Gawaon (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right, the question was about how to deal with multiple languages. M.Bitton (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I also support having foreign language names condensed into footnotes if there's more than one language or if the names are super long. I've seen so many articles in which the lead sentence takes up nearly a paragraph-worth of space simply because of the translations. However, I also think it's important that these footnotes use the 'Note' group rather than the 'lower-alpha' group, as the former creates larger in-line footnotes that are easier to spot for those searching for foreign language names. Loytra (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Point 5 exists because point 4 exists. That is, if all this language information is included, it should be in a footnote per no. 4; and no. 5 says how to format it. It's not logically possible for point 5 to be a "magical override" that means to include all this information in the lead text, formatted per no. 5, or 1-4 simply would not exist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LEADPRON suggested revision #1
I propose we change this:
 * "Do not include pronunciations for names of foreign countries whose pronunciations are well known in English (France, Poland)."

to this:
 * "Do not include in the text of the lead sentence pronunciations for names of foreign locations whose pronunciations are well known in English (e.g., Poland, Paris)."

The logic is clear — if the "pronunciations are well known", then no pronunciation guide is needed. I don't see any good reason to limit this sound guidance to countries.

CUA 27 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm a bit sceptical – currently the French pronunciation of Paris is given in an explanatory note, which is absolutely fine. We shouldn't give the impression that mentioning it is forbidden altogether. Gawaon (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I’ve revised by adding “in the text of the lead sentence” to address your point. Pronunciation guides are fine, but not when they unnecessarily clutter the lead sentence. CUA 27 (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LEADPRON suggested revision #2
I propose adding the green text:


 * "It is preferable to move pronunciation guides to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they are lengthy or would otherwise clutter the first sentence.[O] Do not include pronunciation guides in the text of the lead sentence for foreign translations of the article title, as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability."

With these changes, the following unreadable first sentence:
 * São Tomé and Príncipe (/ˌsaʊ təˈmeɪ ... ˈprɪnsɪpə, -peɪ/ ⓘ SOW tə-MAY ... PRIN-sih-pə, -⁠pay;[9] Portuguese: São Tomé e Príncipe (Portuguese pronunciation: [sɐ̃w tuˈmɛ i ˈpɾĩsɨpɨ]); English: "Saint Thomas and Prince") ... is an island country in the Gulf of Guinea, off the western equatorial coast of Central Africa.

becomes much more readable, with no information lost:
 * São Tomé and Príncipe (English: "Saint Thomas and Prince") ... is an island country in the Gulf of Guinea, off the western equatorial coast of Central Africa.

CUA 27 (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The proposed new sentence sounds fine to me. I don't think the insertion "are lengthy" is necessary, since "clutter" already implies it. Gawaon (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

LEADCITE and responding to challenges over material in the lead
I've frequently seen people respond to challenges over material in the lead of an article solely by pointing to LEADCITE, without indicating what citations in the body they feel support the statements in question. I don't think this is acceptable; WP:V is non-negotiable and is vastly more important than keeping an uncluttered lead, which means that every statement in an article, including the lead, must have citations somewhere in the article, and per WP:BURDEN, someone who wishes to retain them must actually be able to produce the citations in question - vaguely waving a hand at the entire article and implying that they exist is insufficient (and makes verification incredibly difficult.) When text is challenged you must actually be able to produce the specific citations that support it. I suggest adding a bit to LEADCITE along the lines of Citations for challenged material can be omitted from the lead of an article only when the relevant citations exist in the body; therefore, when responding to a challenge over text in the lead of an article, WP:BURDEN requires that you clearly indicate, in your edit summary or on talk, which specific citations already in the article support the text in question. Because WP:V is core policy, an article-specific consensus to omit citations from the lead of an article cannot overcome this requirement. --Aquillion (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * MOS:LEADCITE already says that only "redundant citations in the lead" may be omitted, and that "complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations", even in the lead. Otherwise I don't think your addition would be all that helpful since it's unclear who the "you" is that it addresses. You can just point out to your interlocutors that unsourced material may be challenged and removed, and that LEADCITE doesn't change that. Gawaon (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

EDITED Lead Page
Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I have revised the lead page by summarizing key points and mentioning important aspects and sections of the article itself. I noticed in this article how there was a short lead in the section, and missing depth in the information; as I have also read the conversations above. Emooshka11 (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you just vandalized the page by replacing part of it with sociology content. I reverted your change. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 05:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but I don't understand. The article stated the lead page needed revision as there was a short summary. How do I edit without vandalizing? I do not see what I have done wrong here, as I am simply confused. Emooshka11 (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Emooshka11, you edited the Manual of Style page to write about sociology. Look at your edit and compare it to the current page. Does that help you understand that you edited the wrong page?  Schazjmd   (talk)  19:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi Emooshka11. I see that you are a student editor. This can all be very confusing for newbies here. I don't think you deliberately "vandalized" the page, but that was the effect. You deleted existing content and replaced it with a bunch of stuff about sociology. The WP:Manual of Style is not a Wikipedia article, but instructions for editors. It isn't about sociology. Maybe you accidentally copy-pasted the stuff in there? That can happen. You had just edited the History of sociology article, and maybe that stuff was on your clipboard and you accidentally left it here.

You need to constantly click that "history" tab to see what you have done, whether the result is what you intended, and any reactions to what you did. People will respond and leave edit summaries there. Try it now. Open the "project page" tab and look at its "history". Click on any relevant links (they are called "diffs" by editors). You will see your edit and my response. Then return here and respond to my comments here. I'll be happy to guide you through this. It's pretty overwhelming in the beginning. I have taught a college class about editing Wikipedia. During an assignment I gave the class, a group of girls got together and managed to use WP:Wikilinks to get far afield from what I intended. They got from the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940), to engineering, to the engineering involved in bra design. That involved breasts, leading them to discover the huge amount of uncensored porn at Wikipedia. Their laughter alerted me to what was going on. We all got a good laugh.

BTW, I have written an essay about "lead": How to create and manage a good lead section (a how-to guide). An article's lead is a sensitive matter. Generally, no significant changes should be made to the lead unless there is a genuine need for it. That can occur when the body of the article has been enlarged or significantly changed. Changing a lead often requires quite a bit of knowledge about the whole article. Therefore, it's better to work on the body, rather than change the lead, at least while you are a newbie. Of course, minor copy edits to improve the grammar, spelling, and punctuation in the lead are always welcome. That doesn't change the lead's summary of the whole article. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Citizenship in the lede
We are having a debate on Talk:Stevie Wonder over his newly acquired dual citizenship status. It doesn't seem as though there is a standard to go by on how to refer to a person with dual citizenship; for instance Tina Turner lived in Switzerland for many years, yet she was not referred to as "American-Swiss". Also, Tom Hanks is American-Greek and this is not reflected in the lede. The infoboxes of these articles do point out additional citizenships, and I made sure this was the case on Stevie Wonder. However, several editors insist that his dual citizenship status must be mentioned in the lede despite him being an American citizen for almost the entirety of his life. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LEADLANG
Thoughts on adding the proposed sentence (shown below in bold so editors can readily see the change):


 * Do not include foreign 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 foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology. Do not include in the text of the lead foreign equivalents written in non-Roman script, as this is unhelpful to the non-specialist reader. Foreign-language names should be moved to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence.

Some examples where non-Roman script provides clutter to all readers, but probably helps only a very tiny minority of readers:
 * Districts (දිස්ත්‍රි‌ක්‌ක, மாவட்டம்) are the second level administrative divisions of Sri Lanka, preceded by provinces.
 * The Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (also known as PIDE) is a post-graduate research institute and a public policy think tank located in the vicinity of Islamabad, Pakistan.

These would be better as footnotes or moved elsewhere in the article, and not in the text of the lead. Thoughts? CUA 27 (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Checking to see if anyone wants to weigh in? CUA 27 (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think this change is necessary. There is nothing wrong with having a fairly short expression in another script in the lead sentence. Excessive cases are to be avoided, but that's common sense and doesn't need a particular rule. Plus the rule against clutter is already there. Gawaon (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Worth implementing short description guidance, e.g. WP:SDNONE?
While the mobile apps continue to terrorize the world by not making this at all visible to anyone using them, WP:SDNONE is effectively treated like a MOS guideline: we should probably mention it briefly, right? Remsense 诉  20:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)