Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 12

Proposed lead length guidance para
Well since discussion of my proposed paragraph was repeatedly swallowed up in the discussion above, I'm separating it out here to get a clearer sense of opinion. For clarity, I've split out all mention of specific length to a second paragraph. The lead serves as an introduction to and overview of the article; the reader should not need to read the entire article to get the key points. In general, the longer the article, the more key points there will be, and therefore the longer the lead should be - up to a point. There is a balance between the twin pitfalls of leaving readers to find key points in a long article, and leaving readers to find key points in a long lead: for longer leads, the length of the lead itself can become a problem for the reader seeking a very rapid introduction. As a result for longer leads, it may be helpful to make the opening paragraph a bite-sized summary of the article, with the rest of the lead giving a more detailed introduction. For example, in a biography this approach would mean ensuring that the person's entire life and work is summarised in the first paragraph, with later paragraphs of the lead giving more detail. In general, leads should not normally be longer than 3 or 4 paragraphs. Exceptions may occur where combining different aspects in the same paragraph makes the lead harder to understand, or creates an incorrect impression that two aspects have a particularly strong connection. Because of the variety of topics covered in Wikipedia, no single lead length can be characterised as universally ideal. However, guidance may be taken from featured articles on similar topics.

Rd232 talk 11:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the general "horses for courses" approach.
 * Despite my support for flexibility, I still think some numerical yardsticks (words or chars; paras) would be desirable for the majority of articles - otherwise we simply get shouting matches ("it's too long"; "no, it isn't"; etc.). Although I've produced some quite "flexible" leads, I suggest WP:LEAD should require editors to justify use of more words / chars / paras than the yardstick indicates.
 * I'd suggest 3,500 chars and 4 paras as the yardsticks. --Philcha (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some numerical yardsticks are already there in table form (WP:LEAD); since we just had a lengthy discussion about numerical yardsticks, please let's leave those out of the discussion of this general guidance paragraph. The table would be right next to the paragraph so the para doesn't actually need to specify anything, beyond the long-accepted 3-4 paragraphs target. If you want to relaunch the numerical discussion, please do it in a different section, and ideally wait til this paragraph has been discussed sufficiently. Thanks. Rd232 talk 13:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal. I also have a discussion about setting an explicit preference for lead length in the next thread below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD length problem
The above chart uses Microsoft Word as a destination for a copy and paste of the entire LEAD including reference and citation needed tags. The word and character count come from those tools. Paragraph counts were adjusted for bulletpointed sections and quotations. This list obviously is in flux and as an example, during its creation Marxism and Capacitor were rewritten so as to fall from the list.

In a previous discussion I proposed giving some guidance to editors regarding WP:LEAD length. Numerous respondents stated that there is no lead length problem on wikipedia. I have spent some time looking at the LEADs in Vital articles, which are by some accounts the 1000 most important articles on wikipedia. Above you will see that even among the most important articles to the project, many leads are overly long. Depending on how you define overly long, as many as 5.5% of our most important articles fall into that classification.

It is possible that what was meant by the fact that there is no lead length problem is that although some leads are too long this will work itself out. We however have a clear example of resistance to this change. Furthermore, I know from my own experience that after I expend a lot of energy making a page and people want me to change it, I often ask can you point me to any policy that would explain why I should allow such a change. The example that we have came as a result of the prior discussion when expended a lot of energy making Alexander the Great more concise by taking it from this to this (3720 characters, 580 words and 4 paragraphs to 2939 characters, 469 words and 4 paragraphs). Her efforts led to three separate discussions on the talk page beginning with Talk:Alexander_the_Great and the article has ballooned back to 3714 characters, 580 words and 4 paragraphs. It is clear that editors are resistant to change.

Thus, we have a problem that (i) many leads are too long, (ii) many editors are resistant to changes to their contributions, (iii) we have no policy offering guidance on what a preferred length should be. I do not mean that we should willy nilly chop all LEADs down to a generally preferred length, but I do feel that there should be some policy just stating what a preferred length should be. I think it is possible that anything over 3200 could be considered too long, but am open to suggestions. Note that the current policy states preferred length in terms of paragraphs, but many of the above articles are only three or four paragraphs and are still too long. I think guidance in terms of either characters or KB would be most useful. I hope we can all agree that there is a problem now. I hope people want to become part of the solution.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I should note that there are also many leads that are too short with the most extreme of the vital articles being Ton.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to re-debate this issue again so soon; I have repeatedly endorsed Tony's goals but simply disagreed with his chosen tool. However, I must comment on the situation at Alexander the Great, because in my opinion it is exactly the kind of example that refutes what Tony is saying.


 * I boldly reduced the size of the lead, and another editor who had been active on the page reverted me and began a discussion on the talk page. Other editors joined the discussion.  We agreed on some principles going forward and then moved the discussion into my user space, where we are putting forth proposed versions and then commenting on each others' versions.  We have had five versions posted thus far, and they are getting closer and closer.  We are agreed on a three paragraph structure (even less than to what I had originally cut it!) and two of the three paragraphs now appear to have consensus, with one paragraph very close, it appears.  What Tony sees as a problem was nothing more than a textbook example of WP:BRD that has actually become a wonderful example of the type of collegial interaction that one hopes to have on Wikipedia.  I'm not saying that lead improvement will always go this well, but if one is looking for an example of a problem caused by a lack of concrete numerical restrictions, this isn't it.  Un  sch  ool  22:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, Tony, given how recently there was a discussion on this (which people probably want a break from anyway), it would have been nice if you'd let my proposal have a couple of days to breathe. :( Rd232 talk 22:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have but the chart above changes every day and once I created it, I wanted to post it while the numbers were still good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understood that; the conclusion being that you could have refrained from gathering the numbers for a couple of days. Or if you already had them, does it matter if the figures are a couple of days old? People clearly needed a break from this, I think, before being willing to re-open discussion. We'll see. Rd232 talk 22:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is already changing. If I waited, I would have to go through them all again.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the prior debate was resolved by a majority of people saying no problem exists so no solution is necessary. This is a different debate, since there is a clear problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mm hm. Nonetheless, it seems to me that by not giving it a rest for a few days you've probably torpedoed two proposals for the price of one. Rd232 talk 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the same proposal. There is a clear problem now. Anyone who chances by can now see a problem. I hope people don't say. There is a problem that I did not understand before, which makes my prior argument moot so I am now going to not try to help figure out how to solve the problem because I think I might look bad for my prior opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant my proposal and your proposal. Does SandyGeorgia's response start to make you think I had a point about giving people a break? Rd232 talk 19:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

After having watched this page (one of Wiki's most stable and useful guidelines) for about three years, I'm now unwatching. Will anyone be kind enough to ping me if things change? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with sandy (I actually unwatched a week ago). Let me know when you guys come to the conclusion that ~1-4 standard length paragraphs give or take works for most ledes.  Please don't make this into some en/em dash MOS thing that most article writers will eventually just ignore. Protonk (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who that "you guys" plural is addressed to. My proposal (section above) was exactly that sort of general guidance, which is currently absent. Rd232 talk 08:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just generally casting aspersions and being grumpy. Don't mind me.  As for the general guidance, isn't that what Lead section has said forever? Protonk (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That section currently says "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs." Plus the table. The proposed paragraph expands on that guidance, primarily in relation to the first sentence. Rd232 talk 08:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Protonk, what Sandy and others said above is that there was no problem and no need for a solution. Yes, about 95% of the LEADs are not a problem.  Above I show that a significant portion of the articles have a problem. What about the 5% of article that are a problem.  Do you agree that (1) a significant percentage of our articles have a problem?  (2) Do you agree that some editors (like me if you have ever tried to convince me to change my articles) resist changes to their work?  Are you ignoring the new information in the chart to support Sandy?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will refresh your memory. The following are respondents in the There is no problem, so no solution is needed camp:
 * there are no current problems and repeatedly said no changes are warranted (I could provide several other diffs)
 * no evidence of a crisis
 * My guess is that lead length is a problem with only a tiny fraction of articles
 * little reason to change the guideline
 * more leads of long articles are too short than too long

I am asking you, these people to reconsider whether there is a problem now that I have enumerated a list of problem articles and whether we should provide any guidance that may address the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have enumerated a list of articles whose lead exceeds the lead suggested in the MOS. I'm not sure how promulgating further instruction will solve the problem.  Presumably normal editing has failed to bring the leads down in size for some reason other than hyper-specific guidance. Protonk (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of these are longer than 4 paragraphs and some are not. But they are all very long, which is the problem at issue.  You concede that "normal editing has failed".  Should I put you in the "There is a problem, Let's not offer any further guidance to solve it camp."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. Uh.  Put me in whatever camp you like.  I need to be convinced that a very long lead is something worth all this time and effort.  in saying that normal editing has failed I'm pointing out that I can't possibly imagine that we are unable to reduce these leads only because the current language doesn't specify a character or byte limit and should future language specify a character or byte limit, the editors of those articles will continue to tell people who want to shorten the lead to "pound sand". Protonk (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is not that a numerical guideline is the be all and end all. It does give people who adhere to guidelines guidance.  There are some editors who do respect guidelines and of the guidelines don't state a preference, those editors will be less inclined to allow shortening their LEADs.  Of course, it won't make a difference to editors who don't follow guidelines, but for those that do stating a preferred length will encourage them to stick to such a guideline.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We do state a preferred length, which is up to four paragraphs, combined with the hope that people will have a feel for when a paragraph gets too long. As I said earlier, if we have a problem with leads, I think it's that most are too short. But regardless, as you can see from the table you posted above, most of those are examples of people ignoring the four-paragraph advice, so there's no reason to suppose pinning it down further will make it less ignored. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K., I see your point is that there is a problem, but the problem is in large part because they are ignoring the suggested paragraph length and a suggested word length would not make things any better. I think in many cases, paragraph is adhered to, but the article is too long nonetheless.  In the case above, over 2% of the most important articles respect the paragraph directive, but are generally too long.  I still see that as a problem. Although there are nearly twice as many that are both too long in characters and paragraphs, 2% is a lot of articles, when we are talking about millions on all of WP.  I was thinking about this today when at WP:GAC, I ran into George W. Romney right under two articles I nominated. At 3226 characters, this is longer than I think is necessary.  There are many examples above.  Even if you suppose that all articles that ignore paragraph length would ignore word length, we are still dealing with 2% of the well developed articles based on this sample.  Although not as bad a problem as 5.5%, it is still a problem.  I imagine many of these 2% who have adhered to the paragraph guideline would also adhere to a character guideline if one were given.  Giving those who will adhere to guidelines further advice is the objective here.  The long and the short of it is that we write guidelines for those who will follow them.  Saying that those who don't followt them won't be helped by adding further instruction ignores the fact that those who do follow them will be helped.  The point is to help those who will folllow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, if you just look at those articles that show signs of being created by people who adhere to the guidelines about 20 of maybe 200 well formulated 3 or 4 paragraph lead articles are to long. This is about 10% of the articles structured to adhere to the guidelines are too long.  This is the problem.  Yes LEADs that are too short are another problem as are leads that do not adhere to 3 to 4 paragraphs.  However, of those who follow the guidelines far too many are still too long.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not understand the excessive emphasis on numbers. The lead should: summarise the main points of the article; be able to stand alone, so it must be very clear to non-specialists. I'm happy to provide a numerical guide, but this should alswats be overridden where it conflicts with providing an infomrative summary in clear terms. --Philcha (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is merely guidance for those who will use it. As has been pointed out the majority of articles ignore the guidelines and have either unsubstantial LEADs or too many paragraphs. However, of those that adhere to the guidelines many are still way too long.  The guideline need not be hard and fast, but if a person is going to go to the trouble to follow a guideline and make it 3 to 4 paragraphs, he is likely to follow a convention that says less than #### characters.  We can help those people who do follow guidelines to help us improve the project by stating a preference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The current guidance seems satisfactory to me. The worst offenders in your list, in the two left columns, mostly already violate the existing guidance. More specific guidance is unlikely to help them. Using the vital articles as the basis for this example is also misleading. These topics tend to be broad and writing a lead that actually meets all the relevant guidelines is very hard; there is no easy response to "please write a neutral, verifiable four paragraph passage that can stand alone as a summary of the history of Europe." Length in these cases is interacting wtih many other competing factors, and more specific length criteria would only reduce the flexibility granted to editors in reconciling those competing aims. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the sort of flexibility described in my proposal above... . Anyway your point about Vital Articles not being the best base to generalise from is right; FAs would be better. But I'm just not convinced in any case of the necessity of hashing out detailed numerical guidelines which will be widely ignored for both good and bad reasons. It just seems like energy better spent elsewhere. Rd232 talk 14:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no one who is going to argue that the majority of articles that ignore the paragraph guideline will adhere to a character guideline. So adding a guideline really makes no difference to them. Making the case that adding a character count for those cases would not make a difference most likely true.  As Christopher said, the worst offenders of the current guideline would continue to offend an augmented one.  However, even with a broad topic, people who attempt to adhere to guidelines would likely have another thing to consider toward achieving the desired result. I think Parhams arguement that if we give people attempting to adhere to guidelines guidance, they will get confused is counter to even having guidelines.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to make editors think about how various guidelines are interacting rather than give more specific numerical targets. If you have one very easily measurable criterion, like "length should be X characters or less," and other more subjective ones, like neutrality, clarity, and completeness, it is tempting for editors to meet the bright-line rule at the expense of the gray-area concerns. This would lead to shorter leads but not necessarily better ones. Rd, I do find your version attractive; I think it does a good job of expressing the root concerns that motivate this guideline while not constraining creative solutions that would lead to more useful articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is easy to say that a particular guideline should be balanced against your concern. It is no different than guidelines on page length and splitting articles, which have numerical targets.  Do you feel that these guidelines are impairing wikipedia as well. In general, those who want to adhere to guidelines to improve encyclopedic content will weigh the advice given by guidelines.  Saying that we don't think our editors are capable of doing so on one guideline, but are capable of doing so in all other regards does not make much sense.  Why would you think an editor could follow a directive like WP:SIZERULE and not follow one for the WP:LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the total size limit raises conflicts with other guidelines in the same way that this one does, because 100 KB is not a challenging mark to get under. And the problem is not that they won't follow the guideline, it's that they will follow it too closely, and follow the letter rather than the spirit. That's why I like Rd's proposal - it focuses on the spirit of the guideline, and gets them thinking about what readers need rather than meeting arbitrary character count limits. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, in my experience in almost all cases 60KB is considered to be the point at which an article is to long. However, let's look at the issue here. It seem that you think that if a guideline number is not challenging to get under in general, it can work if I am understanding your distinction.  What do you think a WP:LEAD size is that is not challenging to get under?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fifteen hundred words (roughly, a five page essay) would seem easily achievable in every case. But who knows - I'm not writing every article so I don't feel comfortable setting rules for every article. Anyway, the point is not to determine a level that is easy to reach. We should be challenging ourselves to achieve the most concise leads possible, but we shouldn't set specific numerical goals that may pressure us toward incrementally sacrificing other desirable aims (neutrality, accuracy, etc.). Christopher Parham (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do not think the most concise leads is a correct objective. In fact, it is contrary to the above proposed revision in the sense that in a four paragraph lead the most concise summary should be in the first paragraph with further expansion in the remaining four paragraphs. I prefer to seek a comprehensive summary of encyclopedic content in a reasonable amount of space.  I work on a lot of mid- and low-importance topics, where a reasonable summary might be written in 1000 characters or 150 words, but I tend to right 3000 character summaries that are more comprehensive including details that might not merit inclusion for a more important subject.  At WP:GAC, I trimmed Cato June to help the article pass.  However, it includes details that a hall of fame football player might consider trivial.
 * All that aside, it seems that 500 characters is very similar to my proposed 3200 characters based on the data above. Thus, when you say that most articles could achieve this, it does not seem different from the WP:SIZERULE. It is merely a number that people should consider and that is achievable in most cases with some effort.  Basically, what I am putting forth is a number that most articles should be able to achieve.  Saying to concerned (those concerned about following guidelines that is) editors that we think you could limit your LEAD to 3200 characters or 500 words, should not give them any feeling that they should excise encyclopedic content.  There may be an article or two that needs 5000 characters just as the SIZERULE is commonly interpretted to limit articles to 60000KB, it not considered a brightline rule until 10000KB.  A lead guideline could say most articles should be able to limit their length to 3200 characters or 500 words, but in no case should a LEAD exceed 5000 characters or 750 words.  That would be an analogous application of this rule. It would state a clear preference for LEADS less than 3200 characters and a strong opinion against 5000 characters or more.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a consensus forming?
Now that we've had the discussion, can we each express our views just to see if any consensus is developing?

SUPPORT development of a Lead section length guideline

 * SUPPORT the idea. Let's do the work to develop a guideline.  It would be quite helpful to many editors to have the discussion and generate a guideline in one place rather than redebate this on article after article.N2e (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support obviously as the proponent of this section, I support. After lengthy discourse with  and others, I feel it should both present a quantifyable preferred length (such as 3200 characters or 500 words) and an extraordinary exceptions allowable length (such as 4800-5000 characters or 750 words).  This would both give guidance on preferred formatting and allow for the possible rare exception that would be hard pressed for a host of reasons to conform to the prefered length.  Such a guideline would be consistent with similar guidelines such as WP:SIZERULE.  It could also retain the current paragraph count guidance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OPPOSE development of a Lead section length guideline

 * I am almost certain that I have tagged more articles with intro-tooshort than any other editor. Ledes which are too short are a far, far more important problem than ledes which are too long (I have boldly cropped swathes of long ledes without issue in my years on WP). I am not convince that this problem exists, insomuch as it is not already caught by the GAN / FAN process. I'd far rather all parties here went and found themselves something productive to do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not your opinion carries the day, you sound like a voice of false authority. It would be like a police officer who has given out the most excessive speed speeding tickets attending a meeting to establish minimum speed regulations and confirming that excessive speed violations are more common. What does the fact that short leads are a bigger problem have to do with the fact that long LEADs exist and some editors resist removal of their content contributions including LEADs.  A discussion on problem Y should not be decided based on whether problem X is worse.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that in my considerable experience I've never actually seen this to be a problem which needs a solution. I'm not an anti-prescription zealot by any means, but that doesn't mean I want the MoS to have a hard rule for everything. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would look at what I am proposing (see my statement of support above) I am not proposing a hard rule. I am proposing a soft rule like similar policies.  If I understand what you are saying, it is that there has never in your experience been resistance to trimming a WP:LEAD when you felt a lead was too long.  Maybe I am the only editor who asks people to point out policies when his contributions are being overhauled.  I doubt it though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what I'm saying, yes. As for not proposing a hard limit, an "extraordinary exceptions allowable" limit is precisely that. I disagree with the primary assertion that we have a problem in the first place, and my disagreement follows from that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sympathetically oppose. I recognize that there are leads out there that are too long, but do not believe this is the answer.  A better answer is this, where editors worked together for close to a week hammering out a compromise on the lead, and ended up reducing it from 3700 characters to less than 2600 characters, and improved the quality at the same time.  My fear is that, even if 3200 is stated as a guideline from which occasional departures can be justified, that we will then get into a situation where we are arguing with one another about whether or not an exception is justified in this case or that.  Take this case, where I reduced the lead to 3293 characters.  Tony, who is an honest and fair-minded editor, acknowledged that this was an article that justfied breeching his proposed 3200 guideline.  Yet soon thereafter another editor came along and said it was too long, and cut it back.  We'll work this thing out (I think he actually is unfamiliar altogether with WP:LEAD), but my point is that if he had this 3200 limit to back him up, we'd be getting into an argument about length, and not content. and I just think that content should be the topic of discussion.  I agree with trimming extra long leads, I just don't want a guideline shoved in my face, forcing me to waste my time justifying going 93 words over the guideline.   Un  sch  ool  03:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * TR does not need 3200 characters. At 3293, he was close enough to being properly edited that a minor oversizing was O.K. Although I was too lazy to look that closely before, I easily refined it a bit.  I think it is under 3160 characters now. You are free to cast your voice as you wish, but the point of this guideline is no different than the 60KB guideline for page length.  If you want to see what a debate about exceeding the 60KB guideline is like you can see Good article reassessment/Hillary Rodham Clinton/3.  Having a guideline does not grant free license to hack articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony's edit, by the way, was very good, and yes, he got it under 3200. But we are still seeing this fixation on a magical number (3200), which I do not believe serves us well.  I accept Tony's edit because it was good.  But the TR article notwithstanding, Tony himself has acknowledged that some articles will need more than 3200.  If that is the case, then my objections above remain unanswered.  This artificial limit will eventually cause us to argue numbers, rather than quality.  Un  sch  ool  05:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument is not unanswered. See my statement of support, which clearly grants room for exceptions, just like other similar policies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There are leads that are too long and too short; I don't see long ones as a particular problem. This page already gives guidance, which I feel is adequate, and there's no reason to suppose people who aren't following it will do so if it's tightened. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Quality is more important than numbers, I have seen ledes that are very short and yet fitting and I have seen ledes that are quite long and also work, the guidelines as they stand seem fine. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Different articles need leads of different lengths. The sentence "The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should be no more than four paragraphs" already sums up all that is needed to know about the length of the lead. Such a detailed separate guideline will just become an arbitrary set of rules to enforce in an area that should be left to the discrection of editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose fairly strongly: Not only do articles vary in their nature. Leads serve several different purposes, and the relative importance of each purpose will vary with the article. A classical composer who pursued just one theme might be usefully summarized in one or two paragraphs, while someone like Prime Minister Ignacy Paderewski or Ray Charles, who established significant marks in several different fields, might need more than a passing reference to each. And a character count would encourage short words where longer words might in fact be conciser and more direct. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just had occasion to see the lead to Albert Einstein, apparently the subject of extensive debate among its editors. It now concentrates entirely on Einstein's prodigious achievements in mathematics and science, in a way that means little to those not trained in either, while completely ignoring Einstein's political, social and philosophical views and activities (which were considered significant during his lifetime even if some editors today would think them unnotable). An improved lead would probably be longer.


 * Opposedifferent types of articles need different lengths. There is no way to write a one-para lead for an article such as History of Europe.      DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OTHER

 * Numerical yardsticks would be useful hints, but should not be binding. The highest priorities in a lead are to summarise the main points o fthe artciles, and do this in a way that is fairly easy to understand, as the lead is mean to be able to stand on its own. For complex artciles with wide scope, these objectives may sometimes require more words / chracters and/or more paragraphs than usual. --Philcha (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Long leads are only really overbearing when there are too few paragraphs. I would support limiting para length and from there specifying acceptable number of paras per lead based on article length and complexity. --mikaultalk 21:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this will sound stupid to some, but I didn't see it written anywhere whether spaces are included in character counts (Word offers both numbers). I assume that they aren't, but I'd like someone to confirm this for me. Waltham, The Duke of 23:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Enric Naval put it well above. There is already guidance here.  I think what the initiators and supporters of this idea mean, is there should be better correction of articles that are too short or long.  A project to fix leads might be more fruitful than discussing better language.  +sj +  02:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Using nonsense words in the guideline
There is a minor disagreement going on right now between User:Wolfkeeper and some others, that apparently pertains to Wolfkeeper's insertion of some nonsense words into the guideline. It appears to me that Wolfkeeper recognized that there was a place where an example of a lead sentence was needed, but all that was there was the subject. So he changed the nonsense fragment (Foo bar is a...) into a nonsense sentence, (Foo bar is a lugga in wugga...). Another editor or two has objected, that this was confusing, and Wolfkeeper replied that even a child would not be confused.

Well, I think that Wolfkeeper correctly identified a problem: An example of a lead sentence should probably be a sentence, not a fragment. But I gotta say, for me, anyway, this isn't the solution. Call me a child, I had to read this several times before I figured out what was going on. So while I agree that the status quo ante lupus custodis was not acceptable, neither is this. Un sch  ool  02:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem. Articles are on such a variety of topics that "Foo bar is an X in Y" isn't a helpful phrasing. There's a reason we have a sentence fragment, not a sentence. Rd232 talk 07:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a problem, if any part of something that serves as a guideline is unclear to an average reader. For me, "Foo bar is . . . " is confusing, because until I read that, I had no idea what foo bar was supposed to be; I thought it too was a nonsense word and I had to look it up. Look if you wanted to show someone an example of a sandwich, and you showed them a slice of bread, it would be a poor example of a sandwich.  An example of a sentence should actually be an entire sentence, methinks.
 * Perhaps the answer is in using a couple of real examples, and something more obvious than the "Foo bar" thing, which I hardly believe has confused only me.  Un  sch  ool  04:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I just looked it over and see why my idea won't work.  I'm going to have to give this some more thought.  Un  sch  ool  04:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you're right Foo Bar is geeky and probably confusing to nongeeks... perhaps an explanatory remark at the top of the section would help. Rd232 talk 06:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, I would suggest that, if an example's terms needs to be explained, than it is a poor choice of example. I would say examples should be as generic, common, and "easy" as possible.  It should be recognizable by as many people as possible.  The purpose of an example is to illustrate the text, not demonstrate the knowledge of the writer.  :)  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion, then? Rd232 talk 10:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Total confusion about use of bold
undertook this change to Manual of Style (text formatting)  with the edit comment "move coverage of bold titles to a single location" - however this section now says the opposite of the removed text (see below).

Long ago, I gave up the idea that WP:MOS might be a stable and coherent help to editors, rather than an endless edit war, but this sort of thing drives me crazy. At the beginning of an FLC I have a lead sentence that is in bold and apparently conforms to (parts of) MOS, half way through it seems to be in breech of the same guideline. This is the sort of change that potentially affects thousands of articles.

WP: text formatting section removed: "If the title of the article is a non-trivial description, it is not bold in the text (and need not appear verbatim at all). For example, Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers begins with: "A dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristic is its electrical impedance versus frequency." However, simple descriptions such as “History of the United States”, “List of Portuguese monarchs” or “Timeline of prehistoric Scotland” should be bold. "

I am tempted to just re-insert the above here, but possibly there is a "consensus" here that was different from the one at WP: text formatting. Yrs, in MOS despair. Ben  Mac  Dui  12:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ben, by all means insert it here, given that no one is objecting and it seems to describe what people do. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Tis done already, although I did not include the "List of Portuguese monarchs" as it contradicts what is here and I am aware that using this style is now frowned on at FLC, although when this change occurred I don't know. If I can find the time I will follow up with the FLC folks. Ben   Mac  Dui  08:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

-

Sorry for the delay in explaining things, I've been way busy in Real Life(TM).


 * How we got here

This started because I noticed that MOS:BOLD was apparently in direct conflict with MOS:BOLDTITLE in many ways. We had two divergent descriptions, which were in the process of diverging further.

I tried to look to the examples, only to discover that about half of the examples actually contradict the guideline they're supposedly illustrating.

I then went and studied some arbitrary pages (not a scientific sample) from Category:Featured lists, to see if there was any obvious de facto consensus. I couldn't fine one. Some FLs seem to go out of their way to insert a bold title, even if it's cumbersome. Some FLs avoid the bold title thing entirely. So I didn't see an easy way to go with the “descriptive, not prescriptive” approach here.

So nothing was consistent. I couldn't think of any really effective solution, so I just gave up and crammed everything together at WP:BOLDTITLE. My hope was that if relevant coverage was all in one place, we at least had a chance of sorting it all out.


 * Where should we go?

I'm open to suggestions on what the text at MOS:BOLDTITLE should say. I'm not looking to start an edit war; sorry if anyone got that impression. But I'm interested in discussion, opinions, ideas, etc.

To kick things off, I'll provide my own, personal, gloriously unhumble opinion. Please tear it to pieces if you like. :-)


 * Let the text evolve naturally

The basic rule should be: “If the article's first sentence evolves naturally to contain the title of the article, the first occurrence of the title should be bold”, with the corollary that we shouldn't go out of our way to craft the sentence to have a bold title.

For example, in Timeline of prehistoric Scotland, I find the intro phrase “This timeline of prehistoric Scotland is a chronologically ordered list of important archaeological sites in Scotland …” to be rather awkward. It states the same thing twice. A timeline is by definition a “chronologically ordered list”, and “important archaeological sites in Scotland” would seem to follow from the “prehistoric Scotland” part. ;-) So why word things that way?  Just for the sake of bolding the title phrase?

It also seems to be contrary to the general principle that pages are about their subjects, regardless of title, term, or format. We don't introduce Scotland as “This article about Scotland …”. Why should the timeline be introduced that way?


 * Focus on the subject

As a secondary rule: “If the article's title contains a description of the article's format, only the subject should be bold.”.

So don't bold “List of …”, “Outline of …”, “Timeline of …”, etc. The idea here is to pull the reader's eyes to the major subject of the page, to give them the context they need. The format is secondary.

So, for example, in Outline of Africa, “Africa” alone should be bold (and linked). That page is not about outlines of Africa, it is presenting information about Africa in outline form.

Likewise, History of the United States doesn't contain the phrase “History of the United States” anywhere. We shouldn't try and add it just for the sake of having it bold. However, we should bold the intro link to United States, because that's the major subject of the article.


 * Miscellany

If the above two rules make sense, “If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface.” can simply be replaced with “The page title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.” The loudspeaker example remains good.

Full disclosure: After this question developed at MOS:BOLD, someone rewrote the intro of History of the United States to match the citation. While I think they meant well, that's the opposite of how an example is supposed to work. It also did not seem like an improvement to the article itself. So I reverted. If consensus develops for every page to have the title in bold in the first sentence, I will gladly put it back, and work to make the prose flow better.


 * A few examples for discussion

These are all Featured Lists.


 * Ed Chynoweth Cup: “The Ed Chynoweth Cup is an ice hockey club championship trophy …”. The intro explains what the cup is, which lends itself nicely to the traditional title-verbatim-and-bold method.  Yay!
 * 2008 WWE Draft: “The 2008 World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) Draft Lottery took place at …”.  Similar, except the title is actually expanded.  I like it.  But should “World Wrestling Entertainment” be linked?
 * Grade I listed buildings in Bristol: “There are 100 Grade I listed buildings in Bristol, England …”. The buildings are the subject; the location is just an editorial categorization, so that gets put in bold.
 * Blue Heelers (season 13): “The thirteenth and final season of the Australian police drama Blue Heelers premiered …”. The split bolding doesn't look good to me.  And I don't think “thirteenth and final season” should be italic at all.  Maybe bold just “Blue Healers”, and also italicize and link it?
 * List of Caribbean membranophones: “This is a list of membranophones used in …”. I think it should instead say something like “Membranophones have been used …”.  Again, the import part is the subject matter, not that it happens to be a list.
 * List of Telecaster players: “This is an alphabetized list of musicians who have made notable use of the Fender Telecaster, Broadcaster or Esquire in live performances …”. I'm not sure what to do with that, but does anyone here really like it that way?
 * Timeline of Jane Austen: Delete the entire first paragraph, bold the Jane Austen link of the second paragraph, and call it done.


 * Conclusion

Again, a lot of the above is just my take on things. I'm not trying to say “My way should be the way”, I'm just trying to catalyze discussion. And if there is some better evidence of consensus that I'm missing, I'd be glad to be clubbed over the head with it.

Respectfully submitted, — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the above explanation. Problems, past and present, as I see them.
 * 1) MOS:BOLD and MOS:BOLDTITLE in conflict - now fixed.
 * 2) Inconsistency of bold usage, especially perhaps in lists. I don't know the history - it is possible the above lists all corresponded precisely to MOS at the time they were promoted. I now have a nice little series of Scottish island FLs which, as times goes on, are increasingly dissimilar in style and formatting. It's not a big deal, although it is frustrating to me in that it suggests the increasingly elaborate nature of MOS results in less rather  than more coherence to our overall content. I doubt that it bothers our readers unduly.
 * 3) On a similar theme, when you say " If consensus develops for every page to have the title in bold in the first sentence" - isn't that what pretty much what we used to have? FLCs being required not to do this was new to me.
 * 4) I don't really care that much what styles we have, but in my ideal world MOS would be cleaned up to avoid inconsistency and there would then be a moratorium on future changes for (say) a year. I am not holding my breath.  Ben   Mac  Dui  20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of references in the Lead section
The Manual states: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." When this policy is followed, the lead section will contain summary statements of information that is expanded and developed further in the body of the article. When editors then place a marker in the text of the lead section, what should be done? The expanded explanation which comes later in the article probably has more than one reference, none of which is a good reference for the summary in the lead section. In Operation Crossroads, I have made footnotes which link to the relevant section of the article, but nobody else seems to be doing this.

I could simply pick one of the references from the relevant section and stick it into the lead section text, but that would be less useful to a reader. On the other hand, we could agree that lead section text does not need references at all, since it is further explained, and referenced, in the article.

A common practice, which I think is awkward and unattractive, is to stick all the later references into the lead section, so that almost every sentence ends with multiple footnotes. Also, not really helpful to a reader.

Any thoughts on this?

HowardMorland (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no exception in the policy (WP:V) for leads, Howard. There are often fewer references in leads, or even none, because they may contain more general, non-contentious points. But anything challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, needs a reference no matter where it is in the article. That's particularly true of anything contentious about living people. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All the material in the lead needs to be verifiable, so if it's challenged it needs to be referenced somewhere; that's what V says, or anyways should say. I tend to think that inline citations should be discouraged in the lead.  The lead is supposed to summarize the article; put the inline cite in the section of the article that is being summarized. --Trovatore (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason for discouraging refs in the lead—and it is an important consideration—is that multiple references tend to make the material less reader-friendly. And the lead should be the most friendly and accessible portion of the article.  So for me, my default setting is to leave off references for things that are cited later in the article (and 99% of the time, if the lead is written properly, they will be cited later in the body).  HOWEVER, this is not carved in stone.  It is not at all uncommon for contentious points to make their way into the lead (as is appropriate), and if the editor knows that their point is controversial, then they should include a citation.  To make a long explanation short:  Citations in the lead should be minimized, but that advice should never be used as an excuse to allow a contested point to remain unadorned by a footnote.  Un  sch  ool  06:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree, with the reservation that citations don't always have to be in footnotes. Some articles use Harvard style.  The Harvard style has the advantage that footnotes can be reserved for parenthetical remarks. --Trovatore (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of me would love to leave out references from the lead, but the stronger part of me says that leads should be able to stand alone, and thus need basic references, for a couple of reasons:
 * Leads are often the only part of an article that gets translated into other language versions of Wikipedia, especially Simple English;
 * The projected printed version of Wikipedia will often use just the lead paragraphs; and
 * Be honest: there are many articles that you, and certainly I, have never read all the way through, but whose leads we've read carefully. If that's true for obsessed (sorry, committed) Wikipedians like us, it's certainly true for many ordinary readers just looking for basic facts. Many, though not all, leads have been carefully designed so that if need be, they could stand alone. Three examples I can think of are The Bronx (written by me, although without truly-comprehensive footnotes), War of 1812 and Solar System. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, point by point:
 * 1. simple.wiki is completely useless. Let it die.  It was a bad idea to start with and we should not be trying to keep it on life support.
 * 2. Yeah, they've been talking about that thing for years. I'll believe it when I see it.
 * 3. Certainly if you're just looking for basic facts, you may just read the lead. So?  If you're just looking for basic facts, you're probably not checking refs anyway.  Hopefully you're not doing this in mission-critical cases, but then you shouldn't be reading just the lead.  Editors doing fact checking can correct the leads when they correct the point in the body. --Trovatore (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In history we often have long complex articles with dozens of notes and a long bibliography; squeezing all that into the lede is no help for anyone.  People who want references will find them in their proper context in the article itself.Rjensen (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversies
Controversies are, by definition, controversial, and only make it in to an article if they're notable. In contentious articles this is often no more than a couple of sentences. Mentioning all "notable controversies" is thus essentially duplicating the article rather than summarising it. More sensible to summarise the better known and better covered controversies. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the kind of thing we should leave to editorial judgment. Adding "especially" notable, as you did, would simply lead to arguments about what that meant, and editors would try to use it to keep material out. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it needs to be worded better to state that in some way. As it is it means every controversy about a person or company needs to be listed in the lede. A summary does not summarise every point of an article, merely the most notable aspects of the company. For example someone recently added a 25 year old tax dispute and a 15 year old settled lawsuit to the lede of the Amway article using WP:LEDE saying controversies should be in there. IMO this leads to clear WP:UNDUE problems in the lede, giving otherwise minor controversies excessive emphasis.--Insider201283 (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're currently removing material from Amway that's arguably appropriate (though it needs to be carefully written and sourced), so this isn't a good time for you to try to change the guideline. What counts as notable enough to add to the lead of any given article has to be left to editorial judgment, because the context is all important. By adding phrases such as "especially notable," we would complicate things without increasing clarity. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not removing any material from the article per se, merely the lede. I was in fact involved in the writing of this section in the main body of the article, where it remains, properly sourced. The info placed in the lede was not even a correct summary. I entirely agree that the lede content should to a certain extent come down to editorial judgement - this is precisely what I am arguing for. The problem is, as worded, WP:LEDE currently allows no such judgement. It says notable controversies should be included. Since, by definition, only notable content is in the article, this means all controversies are repeated in the lede, no matter how minor. WP:LEDE needs to reflect the fact there should be some editorial judgement. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know the context, but you removed this from the body of the article, and it seems pretty reliable to me. As I said above, "especially notable" isn't meaningful enough to help any. It would be used by editors as an excuse not to add material that was notable, but not "especially" so. Where a person or company really does have multiple notable controversies and they can't all be included, editors on the page can decide which are the key ones. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the edit, it's an primary source opinion piece paid for and submitted by the plaintiffs in a court case. That's not even close to WP:RS and it was originally discussed and discarded some years back. Re this article, I entirely agree that article editors should make a judgement about what deserves highlighting. I was trying to say exactly that with my addition of "especially". I'm more than open to other suggestions of how to word it. Right now that's not what it says. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't connected to LEAD, but briefly if the issue the primary source discusses has also been discussed by secondary sources, so that the notability of the issue is established, then the primary source may be used. It was written for a hearing by an academic who was an expert witness. That he was hired by one side has no bearing on whether it's reliable, though that would need to be made clear in the article. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the wording may be different meanings of "notable". An article about a controversy might meet notability guidelines, but that would not necessarily make it notable enough to be in the lead section of a more general article that covers the topic to which it relates. In this case, it might be better to use : "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most significant points—including any important controversies." That is not going to dissuade POV pushers, but it might help to emphasise that only the most important/significant issues should be in the lead. Ben  Mac  Dui  19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would see that as a problem, Ben. With "notable controversies," it's clear what we mean in WP's terms: controversies written about by reliable sources. Thereafter it's up to editors to decide which ones to add to the lead if there are several. But words like "especially" or "important" boil down entirely to subjective, editorial judgment, which means there's no point adding them, because that part of the guideline currently relies on editorial judgment anyway. Any ambiguous additional words will simply provide POV pushers with weapons for wikilawyering. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, just to be clear then. Anything in a WP article is, by definition, supposed to be notable, so "notable" is not needed in the WP:LEDE guidelines at all as it is redundant. There is nothing in the WP:LEDE guidelines that describe further editorial judgement about "notable controversies", so as it stands it means every controversy should be listed in the lede. This is not sensible. (huh ... only just noticed the standard here is LEAD, oh well ... :) ) --Insider201283 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right that we should be able to lose "notable" too, but unfortunately that needs to be stressed. Adding "particularly," "important," "especially," or "no, we mean it, really really big ones!" will only lead to fruitless arguments. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Existing: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." It is not at all clear to me why you think that "notable" is any less prone to "subjective, editorial judgment" than the alternatives. However, it's not something I am "especially" concerned about so unless there is more input I'm not going to bang on about it.  Ben   Mac  Dui  08:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just came here after the issue arose in the Barack Obama article again, I think people misinterpret the lede of this guideline to require that all controversies be included. They also confuse the word "notable" with WP:NOTE.  As a modest improvement I suggest we replace the phrase "including any notable controversies" with "including any sufficiently noteworthy controversies" ("noteworthy" being closer to what we're getting at, and sufficiently distinct from "notable" that people will likely not confuse the two).  Other alternatives are to mirror the adjective "important" used in the first part of the sentence ("..any important controversies - per SV's point, if "important" is good enough for the body of the sentence it should be good enough for the addition regarding controversies).  If we want to be more ambitious we could clarify that this is a statement that we don't exclude controversies rather than that we must add controversies, e.g.:
 * It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points, even if those points are controversies.
 * alternately we can rework the sentence structure to make clear that controversies are treated the same as other facts, e.g:
 * It should contain content (including a mention of any applicable controversies) that defines the topic, explains why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarizes the most important points in the body of the article.
 * Any thoughts here? - Wikidemon, 00:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What was the Barack Obama notable controversy that people wanted to add or keep out? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an editor new to the page who's having a few adjustment issues, although I have every hope they'll be just fine. I thought I would leave the back story out to avoid distraction. If you'll pardon the digression, there are four things they want to add that depending on how you look at them could be considered negative information or controversies: (1) Obama's winning the Nobel Prize was criticized / controversial; (2) Obama won his state senate seat by disqualifying all his opponents in a lawsuit; (3) Most of Obama's heralded legislative success in Illinois was under the sponsorship of Emil Jones, a mentor who happens to be a controversial figure; and (4) Obama's Republican opponent for the 2004 seat was Alan Keyes, who platformed on a campaign of stridently accusing Obama of being pro-abortion (Keyes has since become a prominent Birther, but that is not proposed).  Other editors are piling on this new editor and, in my opinion being rather unfair and harsh to the point of incivility.  I'm taking all these proposals seriously though - they're all true, and can be adequately sourced and put in NPOV terms.  The question for me is whether they're of due weight and relevance to be in the article at all, and if so, the lede.  I think the Nobel one may merit a few words in the lede, although I would not describe it as a controversy so much as a surprise that generated a lot of commentary... and the others are fit for the body, mostly.  We're squarely in the territory of editorial discretion, which feeds into the question of balance versus bias for the entire article.  I came here with my question / proposal because the editor proposed this guideline page as a justification for why some of this should be in the lede, and why excluding it is perhaps agenda-pushing.  My take is that this guideline simply notes that the material may be in the lede and should not be excluded solely because it describes a controversy, but it does not demand that any of it be in the lede.  - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first suggestion in italics looks very good to me.--Father Goose (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that information, Wikidemon. I think the current wording "notable controversies" copes with an example like that, because "notable" has to be interpreted relative to the topic. If it's a topic that is very controversial, as presidents always are, then clearly the most notable controversies have to be chosen because the lead can't list everything. I fear it would be a mistake to tamper with the wording, because I've often seen editors try to keep all controversy out of leads, and any weakening of this guideline would feed into that tendency. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 04:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think his proposed replacement is better than the current wording, as "any notable [controversies]" is far more inclusive in tone than "most important [points]". "Most important points whether or not they are controversies" aptly describes what we hope to see in a lede.--Father Goose (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Locomotives
One thinks of the word “Locomotive” as a noun meaning a vehicle with an Internal Combustion Engine that pulls or pushes cars on rail road tracks. In 1829 that term was “coined” therefore leading to the continued thought that all the lead cars on a “Train” are a Locomotive. Actually the term comes from the Latin word(s), Loco and motivus, "causing motion", which means to move, such as to drive one’s actively. Most Locomotives use Diesel as a fuel; hence the “Diesel-Electric”. Which brings me to the Diesel - Electric Locomotive that powers passenger trains. Unlike “Freight trains” in which the Locomotive pulls or pushers the cars, the passenger train Locomotives generate electricity, (power/ “energy”), that powers every individual car which has its own motor. According to “Woody’s Law of Motion”, this allows the smooth “take-off” of all the cars at one time; therefore avoiding any “jerks”. Also some of the modern train cars utilize the principle of “Woody’s Law” and have transmissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woody alspaugh (talk • contribs) 23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Etymology in first sentence?
An interesting point is being raised in WP:Village pump (policy). We often seem to get etymology in the first sentence (like astrology). I can sort of see why we do it, but perhaps this is not a good idea. The article is not about the word or term it's about the subject. By including the etymology, it makes it look like we're a dictionary, that the purpose of the article is the term, rather than the subject, and by doing this we're essentially saying that the etymology is ever so, ever so important. I'm not saying the article shouldn't have it, but I'm not convinced it should ever be in the first sentence, and probably not in the first paragraph. What do others think?- Wolfkeeper  23:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It all depends. I don't think there should be rules, certainly not ruling it out from the first para. For some things it is very relevant, for others not. Some etymologies are very quickly done, others not. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm saying we should absolutely not have it in the first sentence before the definition of what the subject of the article is (for example). Etymology is not necessarily unimportant, but it's not that important.- Wolfkeeper  23:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to see that left to editorial judgment than have a rule about it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to not have it in the leads of articles I work on, some exceptions I can see are astrology with the whole astrology/astronomy thang, and dinosaur name meanings maybe. Maybe best discretionary or a note that maybe best to have in exceptional/notable circumstances. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, everything here is a guideline anyway, and it's looking like best practice is to put it in a separate section, for example etymology(!), and I don't see how giving best practices here is at all a bad idea.- Wolfkeeper  01:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually it's looking like people don't share your feeling that we need rules on this. Most etymologies are covered in a fairly short sentence, which would look stupid in a separate section. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it's looking like you don't get to talk for 'people' others get to do that themselves.- Wolfkeeper  04:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * John's point that very brief etymologies would look odd in a separate section is a good one. I think we really need to leave this to editorial judgment. People have a habit of applying the wording of these guidelines very rigidly, so we should be careful not to add extra words unnecessarily. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, very short etymologies (under 100 words) fit nicely in a footnote and not in the lede. For the great majority of users of history articles (which I have in mind) etymologies are a minor topic and should not take up valuable real estate in the summary. People who want them can find them immediately in the footnote and the rest can ignore them.Rjensen (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just tried it with a few articles, hippopotamus, astronomy,astrology and I move the etymology pronunciation out of the lead also. The astrology article was interesting, when I checked the greek wikipedia, they had an entire section for terminology; and probably the English one should do the same. But if anyone doesn't like what I've done, feel free to change it back, it was largely to see what would happen. Usually encyclopedia articles are on a concept, not a word, so having the etymology in the lead doesn't make any sense anyway IMHO.- Wolfkeeper  06:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I restored the prior version of Hippopotamus with the full etymology and pronouciation in the lead. It seems to me that if there ever was an article where a full etymology belongs in the lead, Hippopotamus is it because many readers will go to the article specifically to find out the origin of the name. Incunable is another good example. In some articles, it's thus important to have an etymology in the lead. But in any event, if an etymology is short, there may be no other reasonable place for it; it may not justify its own section and I don't like it stuffed into a footnote where it is unlikely to be found. Ecphora (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ecphora, Hippopotamus raises a few issues. The first 2 paras are:

The hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) or hippo (ἱπποπόταμος, hippopotamos, from ἵππος, hippos, "horse", and ποταμός, potamos, "river", plural: hippopotamuses or hippopotami) is a large, mostly plant-eating mammal in sub-Saharan Africa, and one of only two extant species in the family Hippopotamidae (the other is the Pygmy Hippopotamus). The hippopotamus is the heaviest extant artiodactyl, despite being considerably shorter than the giraffe.

This compound word is the wrong way round for Greek and correctly would mean "horse-river". The more common Ancient Greek term was ἱππος ποταμου "horse of river".
 * Some of the issues:
 * Serious violation of artiodactyl ...".
 * The etymology needs both Ancient Greek and transliteration of the Greek in order to explain.
 * "This compound word is the wrong way round for Greek ..." is AFAIK correct, but might be difficult to cite and is another complexity.
 * In this case I'd move most of the details to a ref that would explain the details, with one or more citations. Then I'd reduce the etymology in the lead to "The word is derived from Ancient Greek and means "river horse".
 * But in other articles a simple or more complex explanation of etymology would be appropriate. For example an artciler on a scientific or philosophy or theological concept might need a section up front to explain the basic idea(s) before going inot the details, and this may often include the etymology.
 * Bottom line - there's no one size that fits all. --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Compare 3 Scottish islands: Westray - the etymology is so trivial it's only mentioned in the infobox; Skerryvore - less obvious but simple and mentioned briefly in the lead; Skye - so complex the etymology section has become part of a complete article in the subject. It would be very hard to legislate in my view. My personal preference would be a short etymology section rather than a hidden footnote, but I can't see the need for any over-arching instruction creep.  Ben   Mac  Dui  13:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm actually shocked that you reverted that one. Of all of them that was initially the least readable, and had the most ridiculously overblown first sentence, and had a really good place to put the terminology. And a hippopotamus is not any kind of 'horse', that's just a stupid human name for it, it's not a 'river horse'. Note that wikipedia articles are supposed to be about the thing, not about how it's referred to; unlike dictionaries which is predominately about the words used. You're also giving an importance to etymological information that is not shared in the article. How is this right at the beginning of the article? Is this really supposed to be more important than the definition of what the article is about?- Wolfkeeper  14:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any hard and fast line between an article about something and a discussion of "how it's referred to." Hippopotamus has a long section titled "Cultural depictions" which is not fundamentally different from a discussion of the source of its name.  Again, as I noted before, many readers will want to visit this page to learn the origin of a strange name.  The article well might have a discussion of the etymology as a separate section, but at least a brief explanation is critical in the lead.  Ecphora (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So as to keep this discussion general and not have it chase hippos, I have addressed additional changes I made to Hippopotamus on my talk page in response to a question thereUser talk:Ecphora. Ecphora (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no hard and fast line between the article, and how it's referred to, but there's a hard and fast line between a definition of the thing, and the history of how it's referred to.- Wolfkeeper  18:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics for details. - Wolfkeeper has been advocating that "Encyclopedias are on topics, not words. Words are not valid topics." and "It's probably also the case that etymology should be minimised also in most articles." for a long time. Afding, excising, and deleting content he believes belongs only in a dictionary.

I won't elaborate here. See that thread for links and more. My apologies for being so blunt/concise, but I don't know how else to draw peoples' attention to this problem. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One might suppose that the kind of person that chooses an obscure word-name like quiddity will consider word articles ever so important, and hence will go around trying to create them and prevent them ever being removed. That the policy is that the wikipedia is not a dictionary is of course likely to be an affront. That numerous articles start with etymological information before even identification of the actual subject of the article, before anything else is covered on the subject at all, would not be considered a problem, of course. Wikipedia articles are about words aren't they? It's made of words! Words are the most important thing here aren't they?- Wolfkeeper  19:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not created any articles on words.
 * My username has nothing to do with anything here.
 * I don't understand the rest of this comment, but it seems like it might be wp:Sarcasm, which unfortunately you use a lot. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be left to editorial discretion. In some cases, the meaning or derivation of the subject word gives an immediate insight to the uninitiated, better than three paragraphs of lead verbiage. In other cases, it may be less urgent and can wait to be mentioned later on, possibly in its own section. The point is that we need to let editors write; we can't handcuff them with a bunch of stringent rules, or we'll end up with boring database-like entries instead of enlightening, enjoyable and thought provoking articles. Crum375 (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can give me an example of an article that actually definitely benefits significantly from it; if you can please do so. Etymology is always incidental, not to the point isn't? It's obvious to me that it's a bad idea on theoretical grounds; the article isn't supposed to be about the words, it's about the topic.


 * I don't personally mind there being etymological information in the lead, or preferably body; but I really strongly believe that we need a guideline against it being in the initial definition of what the article is about. All else fails, if there is a case where it's an overwhelming win, (I can't see it personally) then they can always break the rule; it's only a guideline.- Wolfkeeper  18:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Octopus is an excellent example, but there are many. The point is that once you understand that this is an eight-armed animal, it immediately gives you a mental image and an overview of the topic, before you get into details. Yes, WP is not a dictionary, but the meaning and word origin of the title is an important, often vital part of the topic. Depending on the specific topic, it may or may not belong in the first sentence. We must let editors decide these things, and use their best judgment, of how to best present the relevant information to readers, and in which sequence. Crum375 (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But you don't need the etymology to paint the picture. It could just start: "An octupus is an eight-legged cephalopod", no etymology needed, but it's clear to the reader.  Wolfkeeper is making excellent sense.  I'm not sure if there should be a hard-and-fast rule, but can we at least acknowledge that he's got a valid point (sometimes excessive etymology in the first sentence makes the article more difficult to read) and allow him to continue editing in the manner he is editing, subject only to the editorial oversight of his fellow editors.  Is that too much to ask? 65.80.253.4 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What is being asked here (by Wolfkeeper) is precisely the introduction of a hard and fast rule. However no one else seems to agree with him, even though many, including myself, may agree specific examples should be improved. Since it now emerges he sometimes removes  information entirely, not just relocates it, and goes round making these edits to articles he has not otherwise edited, and with the aggression and difficulty in accepting other points of view he has shown in this discussion, it will not be surprising if he encounters opposition. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I think mentioning upfront that the word "octopus" means eight-legged, gives the reader a better insight and understanding. But that's my own personal opinion, and I don't edit that article. And that's the point: within the basic boundaries of V, NPOV and NOR, editors should be free to reach consensus and present their topics without excessive interference from overly cumbersome or rigid rules. You wrote "is that too much to ask", but in actuality Wolfkeeper didn't ask for editorial freedom, which would have been fine &mdash; he asked for a guideline mandating this issue ("I really strongly believe that we need a guideline against it being in the initial definition"). If we all agree that the precedence or importance of the etymology should be left to editorial discretion, there would be no problem. Crum375 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine distinctions are often important. For example, the topic of the article isn't the word octopus though; it's the animal octopus. And there's a distinction that you're also failing to make between a guideline and a policy.- Wolfkeeper  01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Guidelines still require editors to justify deviations, and in many cases it's not worth the pain and effort to do so. And there is no "fine distinction" between the "word" and "topic" octopus, not on WP. Octopus is an animal, whose name is octopus. The name was given to it because it has 8 arms, and octopus means 8 arms. For most topics the title is very closely related to the topic, and the derivation and word origin help shed light on the subject matter. It should be up to editors to decide how important the word meaning and origin are in relation to the topic, and where and how to present that information. Trying to shackle them into strict rules would reduce the quality of articles and drive away productive contributors. Crum375 (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding quality control guidelines would magically lower standards? That doesn't actually make any sense does it? It's not like we would be deleting articles due to this kind of thing; the worse that happens is that people ignore it,and somebody fixes it up if it needs that to go FA. I'm not even saying at all it shouldn't go in the article, just not the first sentence. And you'll note that I'm not the only one supporting this, in spite of what you imply above. And, notably, the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have etymology at the beginning of the article.- Wolfkeeper  04:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Forcing editors to conform to a rigid format which may prevent them from presenting information which they consider pertinent and important until later in the article, would reduce quality, not increase it. Our goal is to produce the best possible quality for each article; a central directive that reduces quality will go in the opposite direction, and may drive away potential contributors. Crum375 (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think Quiddity's (talk) warning about User:Wolfkeeper may be correct. Wolfkeeper removed the etymologies from three articles with the explanation "... if anyone doesn't like what I've done, feel free to change it back, it was largely to see what would happen." When I restored the etymology to Hippopotamus, Wolfkeeper responded he was "actually shocked that you reverted that one." I then moved the etymology to a separate section of the article, leaving only the snippet that hippopotamus is "from the ancient Greek for 'river horse'", in the lead (something that I think is highly significant to the article), which Wolfkeeper promptly removed, leaving no trace of the etymology in the lead. Am I wrong to feel that we're not being dealt with fairly? These issues should be left to the editors without unnecessary "policies" or "guidelines". Ecphora (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am an editor as well, and I didn't really intend hippocracy (sorry). I don't understand why you would leave that in the first sentence; it's out of context. The only way to put it in context is to point out that this is Greek, but then you're still talking about the word, not the thing. And the translation was wrong anyway- it was the wrong way around.- Wolfkeeper  03:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding whether to translate "Hippopotamus" as "horse-river" or "river horse":
 * It's not a case of the translation being "wrong", it's a matter of how the editor chose to translate the word(s), which is best explained at Dynamic and formal equivalence. It's the same as translating "Homo habilis" as "handy man", instead of "man handy" or "man skillful". We don't prescribe a style of translation here, therefor editors follow common norms. The common norm is "river horse".
 * However, I'm confused by this paragraph which was recently added, and the shifting around of content has introduced other confusions. -- Quiddity (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree that this should be left to editorial discretion, and we should not add to the instruction creep without good reason. I find value in etymologies within introductions, and object to removals based on personal-preference, such as at Dendrochronology. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying it's to be left to editorial discretion, but not personal preference? That makes no sense to me at all.- Wolfkeeper  04:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm saying it is up to the editors that heavily contributed to each article, in the same way that engvar works in many instances. I object to you going to random articles and deciding that each should be structured in the way that you personally prefer.
 * You don't think articles (like hippopotamus or dendrochronology) should almost ever have their etymologies given early on in an article, whereas I think these etymologies are generally useful (because they are giving a succinct linguistic perspective).


 * You said before: "In general I think we need to have rules as clear and unarguable as possible, in a 'good fences make good neighbours' kind of way. It cuts down on unproductive arguments; particularly on this rule where the wiktionary is the natural home for word articles (which isn't to say that wiktionary is perfect, and the culture over there quite frankly needs a bunch of people going there and sorting it out) [...]"
 * I think you have an overly-conservative/strict mindset (wanting things to be formal and simple and precise), coupled with a incorrect interpretation of the purpose of WP:NAD (you believe that articles on words (like Thou) and phrases (like Mad as a hatter) have no place here), and a belief that articles can never have content on any topic that isn't mentioned in the lead (eg. your removals at Slam dunk and arguments on the talkpage and elsewhere).
 * Many of these disagreements are fundamentally, deep questions of wiki-philosophy (mergism vs seperatism, inclusionism vs exclusionism, incrementalism vs essentialism, Wikicollectivism, etc), but, you refuse to acknowledge that the people who disagree with you have a valid perspective, so I don't know how to continue to attempt to find common ground. All I can do is repeat what I said at AfD/Prithee: If you want to have a proper discussion about removing all "word" articles from Wikipedia, please start one at the villagepump. [please stop trying to do it piecemeal]


 * Whilst looking for that quote, I noticed that you were fighting the same fight over a year ago: starting a FAR for Macedonia_(terminology) and complaining when Marskell closed it early.


 * I don't know what to do next. I have the notes for an RfC, but no interest in dragging either of us through that process, particularly because I don't think it would change your views or behaviour. Help? -- Quiddity (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Tell you what, why don't you go find a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and try to find a single non grammar-based word article in there. Don't bother to come back without finding one.- Wolfkeeper  14:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ??? grammar? Johnbod (talk)
 * You seem to misunderstand. Sure, you can have articles on English grammar in Wikipedia; and IRC a few percent of the articles in EB are on that for example. He needs to find an article about a single word.- Wolfkeeper  15:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * None of this is about "grammar" at all - check what the word means. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems to be about a bunch of people interested in:
 * adding every word in the English language to the Wikipedia (potentially)
 * having the articles list the etymology and usage (pretty much only in most cases, but they don't care if other bits are stuffed in as well).
 * Systematically blocking any attempt to delete these by claiming in deletion reviews that thou is a featured word article (which is technically true whether or not it should be is a different question), and that the relevant policies 'don't really mean that' and hence all word articles are 'valid'.- Wolfkeeper  16:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hippopotamus has included a discussion of the unusual word's etymology since February 25, 2002, two weeks after the article first appeared on Wikipedia (and on its second edit), and apparently has always thereafter included the etymology in the lead. Apparently innumerable editors have felt that appropriate. I find User:Wolfkeeper's editing articles to delete even brief etymologies and impose his one-man Wikipedia style/content policy disruptive. Ecphora (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And even then it wasn't in the first sentence. In any case I haven't deleted any content from the article, I've moved it around. If you find that moving material around to be disruptive, frankly that's your personal problem, not the wikipedia's or mine. A careful reading of the WP:LEAD guideline does not support in any way its presence in articles lead sentence anyway. The first sentence is supposed to be defining the topic, not doing dictionariac definitions of the words in the title.- Wolfkeeper  —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 21 November 2009.

Meteorology, Pathology, Herpetology. Undiscussed, no edit summary, 1 marked as minor. At Herpetology, someone now has to read through 8 mentions of the letters Herp… before finding out that herpeton meant "creeping animal".

Are you going to remove the etymology of "Homo sapiens" from the lead sentence of human, and similarly for Homo habilis and Tyrannosaurus? Or just the ones where you decide they're not required in the lead sentence? You're imposing your own subjective personal preference, in spite of the evidence that the majority of editors (those who wrote the articles you are changing, and at all the talkpages we've discussed this at) consider it an acceptable way to structure an article lead. I don't know how many more ways there are to explain that you're not following the majority-consensus. This is getting ridiculous. You're playing the role of the stubborn person who keeps pushing and pushing until "rules" are made to stop the behaviour. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Time for that Rfc maybe. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Gee etymology man thinks etymology is more important than everything else, and demands etymology be put in the first sentence of every article in the wikipedia, even if it impairs readability and is not directly to do with defining what the article is about. What a surprise. Etymology is very important... in a dictionary. In an encyclopedia... not so much. Grow up Quiddity; nobody else is reverting my edits. How many people study ancient greek? My edits make the articles clearer and more encyclopedic, the Wikipedia's readership generally doesn't know or care that much about the greek hieroglyphics; and that's who we're writing for. The fact that the first part is greek and means this and the second part means that, they don't know, they don't know the greek. People that are interested in astronomy aren't interested in astrology that much, and vice versa. The fact that they share a word root; they don't care.- Wolfkeeper  15:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And if they do care; it's still in the article; I haven't removed it. Quiddities attitude is basically a big fuck you to the readership, and he's acting like he thinks everyone agrees with him. Nahhhh.- Wolfkeeper  15:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean what's better before or after: Anthropology. After, clearly.- Wolfkeeper  15:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Two points, WK. First, knowing the origin of a term can tell you a lot about the history and development of the concept, or the perception through time of the thing that's being named, so etymology is not as useless as you think. Secondly, the ArbCom has ruled several times, and the MoS makes clear, that people shouldn't go to articles for the sole purpose of imposing their style preferences over the objections of the editors on the page, and where to position etymology is a style preference. It's clear there's no consensus for your view here so it's best to drop it. When you're writing articles, you're very welcome to have etymology in a separate section&mdash; no one, I hope, will try to force you to do otherwise&mdash;but similarly, when other people are writing articles, they have to be allowed to position it as they see fit. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I specifically have not been imposing my style over any editors objections on the relevant page. I have done absolutely nothing wrong in this regard.- Wolfkeeper  18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And the other little fly in your ointment Slimvirgin is that these are articles I predominantly previously edited, and I am moving material that I worked on.- Wolfkeeper  18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You've made two edits to Meterology, three to Pathology, one to Herpetology, and three to Anthropology, so I feel my ointment remains fly-free at this time. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So what? I don't see any consensus against editing articles here, not when I'm just moving stuff around, and I'm sure you would be unable to achieve that consensus, you're just trying to drum up wikidrama. There's none to be found here.- Wolfkeeper  19:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, I do see that people that are going around spamming leads with etymology (e.g. Stefeyboy) might well be considered to be acting improperly as the Wikipedia is not, in the final analysis, a dictionary of the English language.- Wolfkeeper  19:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously, I think you need to consider dropping it. People clearly don't agree with you, rightly or wrongly, and already someone has mentioned a possible editor RfC. It's not worth it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously, I think you need to drop it SlimVirgin. And 'people' (as you put it) clearly *do* agree with me. Does everyone? No. But nor does everyone agree with you, and it's much more divided than you appear to believe. There is no clear consensus to change this guideline, here. The articles appear to be a different question, people seem to be working alongside each other reasonably well.- Wolfkeeper  21:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Wolfkeeper, well above half the number and words in this posts are by you. In addition there are 1 run of 3 consecutive of 3 posts by you and at least 2 of 2 posts by you. This is in addition to your unilateral removals of etymologies in a number of articles, and AFAIK without justification by citing guidelines or policies. This type of pattern is often associated with POV warriors. I suggest you drop the attempts to remove etymologies from any articles under you have persuaded other editors that there are good grounds. Otherwise I will either support a RfC or go start to ANI with a charge of edit warring. --Philcha (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you are failing to assume good faith, and ignoring the fact that I haven't actually removed anything. WP:ANI won't care as it's a content issue, and an RFC is unlikely to do you any good, given that there isn't any edit warring. You're also engaging in threats. You might like to not do that. I feel touched that you are counting my every word.- Wolfkeeper  16:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As you have said yourself, "there is no clear consensus to change this guideline, here." Having accepted that it is time to drop the subject. By all means collaborate on improving individual articles but there seems little purpose in continuing to discuss the issues relating to them here. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, I was being gratuitously threatened, and I have no intention of not building consensus.- Wolfkeeper  20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not tally up who feels what then to get an idea of consensus thus far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)