Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:07, 3 April 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Lead section page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days

• WT:LEAD

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Standard lead paragraph length

With this edit (which I reverted) by Spinningspark, Spinningspark changed the longstanding part of the guideline that states " should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." Spinningspark changed it to "length should be commensurate with the size of the article and be carefully sourced as appropriate." And below on the same page, Spinningspark changed "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs." to "For a long article the lead might typically be four paragraphs—but this is not an absolute rule." Spinningspark cited Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 17#Four-paragraph lead for the changes.

Like I stated in the edit summary for my revert of Spinningspark's edit, I see no WP:Consensus that the page should have been changed in such a way. And I consider the changes problematic because this is a longstanding part of the guideline that most very experienced Wikipedians are familiar with, especially experienced WP:Good article and experienced WP:Featured article reviewers. Like Spinningspark stated in the above linked discussion, this portion of the guideline is practically set in stone. This to me means, because of its mass reach and the fact that most of the people familiar with it will not be aware of such changes made to it until much later, these changes should be something that the WP:Manual of Style editors in general decide on; in other words, a lot more people. I feel that the general WP:Manual of Style editors should be invited to this discussion. I also don't agree with the changes because I believe that we should have a standard length; the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" rule has remained strong because it usually does not take more than four paragraphs to summarize an article and we generally should not have articles that have leads exceeding that length; the last thing we need are people thinking that five or more paragraphs for the lead is generally a good thing. This portion of the guideline is not about "or a long article the lead might typically be four paragraphs—but this is not an absolute rule"; it's about the lead likely being too big if it exceeds four paragraphs. Flyer22 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation Flyer22. Just because something has been established for a long time does not mean that it cannot be improved. Why do you think that more than four paragraphs is intrinsically bad? Would it be wrong to have five pargraphs in an article that was twice the length (60kB) of the largest entry in the table? Or five very short paragraphs? In the particular case that provoked this discussion an FA submission with five paragraphs was challenged in which the fifth paragraph expanded upon what was not in the article scope. This seemed to me a legitimate reason for lengthening the lead but was being prevented by an overly prescriptive guideline. As I indicated on your talk page, the original discussion was trailed at the Village Pump. Why do you think that that was inadequate? SpinningSpark 18:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the discussion on my talk page that Spinningspark is referring to, where it is further indicated that there was no WP:Consensus for the aforementioned changes. I agree that "Just because something has been established for a long time does not mean that it cannot be improved." As for "Why do think that more than four paragraphs is intrinsically bad?", I addressed that above: "it usually does not take more than four paragraphs to summarize an article," as I'm certain that the vast majority of WP:Good article and WP:Featured article reviewers would attest to. WP:Too long, didn't read (people not reading what they deem to be overly long text on Misplaced Pages) is a real issue, and we need to make sure that our Misplaced Pages leads are sufficient in length without potentially driving readers away because they are overly long. Why don't you consider why the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" rule was implemented in the first place -- that it has lasted as long as it has because it generally works for Misplaced Pages articles and should not be changed simply because of an encounter you had with a reviewer who interpreted the guideline too strictly? As was explained to you in the discussion I linked to in my first comment in this section, this guideline did not prevent you from the lead you desired; a reviewer who perhaps wrongly applied the guideline did. I don't believe that exceeding four paragraphs is always bad; for example, it's often needed for president articles, such as Barack Obama, and sometimes for other political articles, but even the Barack Obama WP:Featured article is currently four paragraphs. So an actual better political example exceeding four paragraphs is the WP:Good article Hillary Rodham Clinton, which is currently at five paragraphs (one could argue that five paragraphs are not needed there). But for Misplaced Pages articles to generally exceed four paragraphs? No, I'm not seeing it as needed. Nothing wrong with indicating in our guideline that more than four paragraphs generally is not needed.

Also, in my opinion, it generally is not good to make changes to guidelines like you did in this case and now here simply because of one bad experience you had and because you posted a complaint on the guideline's talk page and either didn't get any responses or got a few responses. You should always keep in mind that these guidelines affect the Misplaced Pages community as a whole and generally should have solid WP:Consensus before such significant changes are made to them. While no response can mean WP:Consensus, it often does not mean WP:Consensus; anyone who spends time at enough contentious Misplaced Pages articles knows that. If you wouldn't be making such changes to Misplaced Pages policies, I don't think you should be making them to Misplaced Pages guidelines either. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well WP:BRD applies to policy and guideline pages just as much as it does to any other page. It is ridiculous to expect me to assume that there will not be a consensus because of those that did not participate in the discussion. I am not a mind reader. Your fundamental argument seems to be that a lead more than four paragraphs will make it too long. I disagree with this: firstly, splitting into more paragraphs often makes text more readable without changing the length, and secondly and consequently, number of paragraphs does not directly relate to text length. Insisting on four paragraphs could have the wholly undesirable effect of encouraging the combination of text into overly long and less digestible paragraphs; much more of a TLD case. You are wrong that I am merely "complaining" about one example. I have seen this problem before, but this time it directly affected me and I decided to do something about it.

Anyway, we clearly disagree. How do you propose we go about finding community consensus on the issue? SpinningSpark 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that "t is ridiculous to expect to assume that there consensus because of those that did not participate in the discussion" (it's not like you had good, as in sufficient, participation); it is not any more ridiculous than expecting that there is WP:Consensus simply because editors, such as myself, ignored your complaints. Per WP:Consensus, WP:Consensus versions should be adhered to until new WP:Consensus is achieved. And I don't see how it was at all adequate for you to assume that new WP:Consensus had been achieved in either of the instances above, especially the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" matter; I don't see how you felt that it was a great idea to change such a longstanding guideline -- the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" aspect, except because you like the idea of an article's lead exceeding four paragraphs. If it is applying WP:BRD (testing the waters), okay then, but I still don't believe that significant changes should be made to a guideline or policy without clear-cut WP:Consensus. The guideline is not insisting on four paragraphs; it's insisting on not exceeding four paragraphs, and for very good reasons. Reasons I've already noted above. I agree that a Misplaced Pages lead of five short paragraphs can be fine and look nice, but I have seen Misplaced Pages leads with five or more short paragraphs that look a mess, and Misplaced Pages leads of those lengths (especially surpassing five paragraphs) generally looking like messes...very much WP:Too long, didn't read messes. I don't see anything wrong with having a length standard for leads (a general cut-off point)...especially one that has been followed for years generally without any problems; just like MOS:PARAGRAPHS makes clear that paragraphs that are too big can inhibit flow, it makes clear that paragraphs that are too small can as well.

As for proceeding, your post to the WP:Village pump about this did not work out well. So like I suggested above, I will alert the editors of WP:Manual of Style to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not said I like more than four paragraphs. Actually, I think four is a helpful guide. I just don't think that that should be a fixed as a maximum. You just said yourself that you think five can sometimes work. SpinningSpark 01:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The lead being no more than four paragraphs is set as a helpful guide. As has already been stated, it is not mandatory; it's a part of a guideline, after all, not a policy. And I'd essentially already expressed that five paragraphs can work when I stated, "I don't believe that exceeding four paragraphs is always bad; for example, it's often needed for president articles, such as Barack Obama, and sometimes for other political articles, but even the Barack Obama WP:Featured article is currently four paragraphs. So an actual better political example exceeding four paragraphs is the WP:Good article Hillary Rodham Clinton, which is currently at five paragraphs (one could argue that five paragraphs are not needed there). But for Misplaced Pages articles to generally exceed four paragraphs? No, I'm not seeing it as needed." In other words, and as I've made clear more than once now, I generally don't think that a Misplaced Pages lead should exceed four paragraphs. I feel that we should stay with our (general) cut-off point of four paragraphs; I don't see that guideline as broke, and therefore I don't see it as needing fixing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if we start from "up to four paragraphs", how do we define "a paragraph"? I mean, what should be the maximum length of such a paragraph? Please, let's remember that the lead section should always be as concise as possible – that's what people read first, and decide whether to go deeper into the article or not. Also, things (including lead sections) can be messy regardles of their length. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I am less concerned with the MOS change, which essentially says the same thing using different prose, than I am with the notion of restricting the lead to four paragraphs; and then, I presume, dis-favoring long paragraphs that can easily be split. What matters is that the lead adequately summarizes the body and therefor that it be commensurate in size.—John Cline (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

John Cline, and it's often been that editors have not easily judged what is adequate lead size without applying the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" standard; that standard has consistently helped leads adequately summarize articles without the lead being too small or too big; never have I seen it present itself as a problem. I've seen it help in countless WP:Good and Featured article processes, and don't think it should be changed because Spinningspark had a bad experience with a reviewer who applied it. In fact, I'll go ahead and invite editors at WP:Good article, WP:Featured article and WP:Featured article candidates to weigh in on this discussion as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The subset of the reviewers at Good and Featured articles who blindly apply rules without considering how well they apply to individual cases are what causes this text to be problematic. I hope the ones you bring in to this discussion are the more thoughtful ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out, I did not completely remove the suggested four paragraphs in my edit, that was left in the table of suggested lengths. It was just a change of emphasis to make it less of an instruction. SpinningSpark 02:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would welcome an RFC on this. The fact that the rule is long-standing and well-known is irrelevant: if we applied such a criterion, Misplaced Pages would ossify. The rule seems arbitrary to me, and it gives rise to a temptation to cram too much into one paragraph. I see this too often. --Stfg (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Then we should do a WP:RfC, and advertise it well because the fact that the rule is long-standing and well-known is not irrelevant to me; not any more irrelevant than the WP:3RR rule and the revert limit being set at three reverts. I don't ever think that it is a good idea to significantly tamper with a long-standing policy or guideline that has worked well for years (not that some editors don't argue against the WP:3RR rule). And Spinningspark's changes were significant because they eliminated that rule and applied it in a non-helpful general way (that long articles may have a four-paragraph lead, when the same can be stated of five paragraphs...and so on). Discarding the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" rule will give rise to the lead issues I noted above; I always see those issues, which are always well worked out once the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" rule, which again is not mandatory, is applied. It is a standard, and far less harmful (not harmful at all in my experience) than some of our other Misplaced Pages standards. Flyer22 (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

We could do a RFC if you insist, but I feel this would be too much of WP:BURO. Do we have to have a RFC on every minor detail in MoS? As far as I'm concerned, we're having this RFC right now, maybe in a less structured manner. That being said, I support the change, as I think that imposing too rigid rules (such as the old one of four paragraphs) is both an instruction creep and an invite to ruleslawyer (such as arbitrarily merging and breaking paragraphs), which is contrary to Wikipedian spirit. MoS should be describe best practices, not prescribe them. If this is just a guideline, it should be presented in softer terms, leaving the four paragraphs rule just as a rule of thumb, not as a commandment. No such user (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

For a longstanding and widely used guideline like this? Yes, a (well-advertised) WP:RfC is best, just as Stfg indicated. I fail to see how the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" aspect is a WP:CREEP violation (which would be a violation of an essay anyway) or any of the other things you mentioned, when this is a guideline instruction that works well and always, in my experience, when applied correctly, keeps leads from being an absolute mess. We now need to change this very good instruction because Spinningspark had a bad experience with a reviewer's interpretation of it? That's ridiculous to me. Editors often see policies and guidelines differently, even the WP:3RR rule. Does that mean that we should change those policies and guidelines each and every time, or at all, in such cases? No, as far as I'm concerned. Guidelines instruct. And so this guideline instructs that leads generally don't need to be any longer than four paragraphs; time and again this have proven true -- leads generally don't need to be more than four paragraphs. And Spinningspark stated above (at "01:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)"), "Actually, I think four is a helpful guide." So I cannot at all see it as a good idea to eliminate this guideline. It does describe best practice. And it specifically states that it is not an absolute rule, but rather a general one. Flyer22 (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Spinningspark did not eliminate the guideline , but instead replaced it with length should be commensurate with the size of the article (which I welcome) on one place, and rephrased the previous (rather awkward) wording on the other with For a long article the lead might typically be four paragraphs—but this is not an absolute rule., basically stating the same as before. Wording could be perhaps ironed out, but I don't think the four-paragraph rule should exist in the lead section (because, quote, "many only read the lead". No such user (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Spinningspark did eliminate the guideline; like I stated above, "And Spinningspark's changes were significant because they eliminated that rule and applied it in a non-helpful general way (that long articles may have a four-paragraph lead, when the same can be stated of five paragraphs...and so on)." Not a helpful change in the least, in my opinion. Besides that, Spinningspark moved it out of the lead, where it needs to be as well. That readers often don't read past the lead (like WP:Lead states) applies to Misplaced Pages editors as well. And yet you don't think the four-paragraph rule should exist in the lead? That's not logic that I follow. Flyer22 (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for pointing out yet again that I did not remove all mention of four paragraphs, only changed the emphasis. It seems that Flyer22 will not be satisfied without a formal RFC so let's just do it already. SpinningSpark 12:07, 28 February 2014‎ (UTC)

I never stated that you removed all mention of it. But since you must not have seen my commentary about "well advertised" with regard to the WP:RfC, then I will alert various WikiProjects to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I was in the process of trailing at the MOS talk page and VPB when you posted. By all means advertise at Wikiprojects as well although I would have thought we already have wide enough involvement. SpinningSpark 12:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I was about to state "and possibly other outlets...such as the WP:Village pump," but you got the WP:Village pump (VPB) covered. Flyer22 (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, for those who have not already looked at my latest contributions to see see what type of notification I was sending the WikiProjects, this is it. And below are all the WikiProjects I contacted; these are the aforementioned outlets I mentioned (I stuck with WikiProjects). At first, I was thinking of the big WikiProjects on my own...but then I started to look for WikiProjects based on WP:RfC's Issues by topic area categorization format. I would have contacted Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies earlier, but I didn't think to do so until late in the run. And I initially overlooked Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Trade and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Companies when following the WP:RfC categorization format. Here are all the WikiProjects I contacted, in order of contact (and, yes, I feel like I contacted all of Misplaced Pages; wish I had a bot to have done it for me):

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television ‎
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Soap Operas
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film ‎ ‎
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anatomy ‎
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Musicians
• Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Biography
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Neuroscience
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sociology
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Law
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Science
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mathematics
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Economics
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject History
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Geography
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Languages
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Linguistics
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Technology
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Media
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Arts
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Architecture
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Politics
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Philosophy
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sports
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Culture
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Trade
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Companies. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC on four paragraph lead

The guideline currently indicates that leads should generally be a maximum of four paragraphs. Do editors support softening the wording to make clear that this is not a firm rule? If editors do support such a change, do they support the (currently reverted) wording proposed by user Spinningspark? SpinningSpark 12:07, 28 February 2014‎ (UTC)

See the above discussion on the guideline talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Support Spinningspark's wording

1. Support It is counterproductive to have such arbitrary rules. SpinningSpark 12:07, 28 February 2014‎ (UTC)
2. Support. I have seen editors get around the rule by writing inappropriately long paragraphs in the lead. Such paragraphs actually hinder clarity for the reader and would be better off split into more paragraphs. Axl ¤ 15:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, as I said above. It is too rigid and opens the door for wikilawyering. No such user (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Support an improvement, but could probably be even better worded.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Support. If specific alternative softened wordings are proposed I would also likely support them, but I see Spinningspark's wording as a clear improvement over what we have now. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Spinningspark's wording

1. Oppose I support softening, but those are the wrong words. The size of the lede should be related to the reader's experience (i.e. it should provide a good overview that isn't TL;DR). I don't see that this need be commensurate with the size of the article. --Stfg (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - those are the wrong words. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose - those words are a step backwards. They make it seem like something like a 10% rule would apply to articles of any length. Even the oversized articles (60-100KB or more of readable prose) should generally try to stay within a 4 paragraph and 3000-3200ish character size.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose I think the four paragraph rule is a useful bright line. If it were upped, well, there would be few practical limitations on the length of the lede, and that would make things more difficult at the FAC process since the nominator could point to the rule when a reviewer opposed, and it would lead to more conflict. Any article really needing 5 paragraphs can be handled through IAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose. The existing wording says, in part: "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule". It seems to me that those words already achieve sufficient softening. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Four paragraphs seems pretty good to me. — Cirt (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
7. Current wording is sufficiently soft. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
8. Oppose, agree with Stfg. Zad68 06:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Support softening, not necessarily Spinningspark's text

1. Support It is counterproductive to have such arbitrary rules. SpinningSpark 12:07, 28 February 2014‎ (UTC)
2. Support The length of a paragraph is like the length of a piece of string. The 4-paragraph recommendation is arbitrary. We clearly need to give some guidance as to what makes a good overview, but this one poor, and one does sometimes see it insisted upon to strongly. (Something about word count might be OK, but I'm not attached to this). --Stfg (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Comment I could support softening of the guideline, but only where it is clear that a lead being more than four paragraphs generally is not needed. For the time being, I am more so leaning toward opposing any softening of the guideline, as shown below. Flyer22 (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Per Stfg. Generally too-short leads are far more of a problem, and in article text generally, too-short paragraphs. At least the current wording discourages over-short paras in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Support, per Stfg. No such user (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
6. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
7. SUPPORT—John Cline (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
8. Support, comparing to featured articles is disingenuous, most articles will never get the attention of those articles. What a four paragraph rule does is encourage people to delete anything extra or force content into four paragraphs. Perhaps a one-rule-fits-millions of articles isn't best here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
9. Support The lead section should be long enough to properly summarize the rest of the article, whether that be just 1 paragraph or 6. Setting an arbitrary number for paragraph, even a recommended maximum number, does not always lead to a lead section that properly summarize the most important aspects in the article. That is because the lead section should be able to serve as a stand-alone article unto itself. The sub-sections that follow simply add details to what is covered by the lead. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
10. Support a move away from a "four paragraph" prescription but would rather see a recommendation (not a hard limit) based on a number of words, rather than a number of paragraphs. We have WP:SIZERULE based on the maximum amount of content a reader can be expected to consume in one sitting; I think the lead should be the important content a reader can be expected to consume while standing on one foot (or the like). Whether I as the copyeditor of a lead would like to split that up into three or four or five paragraphs should be my choice, driven by groupings of subject areas in the article I'm trying to summarize. Zad68 06:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
11. Support I think it's worth establishing consensus of the need for change first and then crafting the change collaboratively. No objection in practice to the proposed words, I'd just like to take it a step at a time. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
12. Support and provide some guidance, but not the arbitrary hard "4 paragraph" rule. The proposed change is a good start, but it doesn't provide enough guidance. The problem with 4 paragraphs as a guideline is that it can be met by people just eliminating carriage returns between paragraphs to get a completely arbitrary "4" breaks. Completely useless for providing guidance as to proper length. The lead should be of a length commensurate with the length of the article, but we should also provide some better guidance of how to do that. Not just an arbitrary length, but guidance on how to write a lead that is of the appropriate length. --Jayron32 11:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
13. Support While many, probably a majority of articles can do with that limit, many of the longer ones will require longer ones. Circéus (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
14. Support I agree with the discussions below about how each paragraph should represent a topic. Some articles may need more than four paragraphs to properly summarise the article. I think it would be wise to recommend that they try to keep the summary short, but not too short and use four paragraphs as a guideline, but there is no reason to make it a rule. Zell Faze (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
15. Support I agree that the wording should be softened but it should be clear that some limit (i.e. a reasonable one) exists. APerson (talk!) 22:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
16. Support (similar to Jayron32 & Zad68) The emphasis should be stressing that (a) the lead should be in proportion to the main article text, then (b) an upper word limit guideline. The current paragraph-based guideline is a poor proxy for these two guiding aspects. SFB 07:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
17. Support It should be emphasised a little more that this is a soft rule. Also, we need to capture the fact that the length of paragraphs can vary and it maybe conducive to have 5+ small paragraphs rather than combining unrelated sentences. Zangar (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
18. Support. Leads shouldn't be allowed to get out of hand, and I think that even a lot of short leads are longer than they should be, but "four paragraphs" is just too easy to get around (say, by simply squishing two paragraphs together). I wrote a (quite long—3668 B) five-paragraph lead for ukiyo-e, and somebody brought it up on the talk page (safe to read—no explosive arguing). I honestly don't know where I could drop an entire paragraph—it's all pretty basic to the topic. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
19. Support - A single paragraph should contain one idea. Strongly encouraging "no more than 4" just makes people write bad paragraphs by eliminating carriage returns. If a subject has 5 major topics, it should have 5 (short) paragraphs in the lead. If it has 3 major subjects, it should have 3, etc. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose any softening

1. Oppose. Like I stated above: "his is a guideline instruction that works well and always, in my experience, when applied correctly, keeps leads from being an absolute mess . We now need to change this very good instruction because Spinningspark had a bad experience with a reviewer's interpretation of it? That's ridiculous to me. Editors often see policies and guidelines differently, even the WP:3RR rule. Does that mean that we should change those policies and guidelines each and every time, or at all, in such cases? No, as far as I'm concerned. Guidelines instruct. And so this guideline instructs that leads generally don't need to be any longer than four paragraphs; time and again this have proven true -- leads generally don't need to be more than four paragraphs. And Spinningspark stated above (at '01:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)'), 'Actually, I think four is a helpful guide.' So I cannot at all see it as a good idea to eliminate this guideline. It does describe best practice. And it specifically states that it is not an absolute rule, but rather a general one." Flyer22 (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
2. comment rewording or clarification is potentially an option, but "softening" because of one bad experience is a terrible idea. there is no evidence that there is a widespread problem that would be "fixed" and lots of potential for unforeseen bad side effects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose. The length of the article has no bearing on the length of the lead. Eric Corbett 15:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Per what Flyer22 said. Four paragraphs (in complete moderate length) is fine and quite enough. If users feel the need to over-load the paragraphs, it should also be another editor's right to shorten them to the important information. Rarely do I see over-loaded introductory paragraphs. livelikemusic 15:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I would prefer strengthening to suggest that going beyond 3000-3200 characters of readable prose is almost always counterproductive.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Tony and likelivemusic, and my comments above.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Four paragraphs is enough. We don't need to write an entire Start-class article in the lead. We're only talking about best practices here, and consensus can establish that four paragraphs is not enough; there isn't really a problem to be solved. I agree with the others that we should encourage simplicity and conciseness. Overloaded paragraphs can be (and are) trimmed down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Ditto. See WP:LEADLENGTH and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. An overlong lead is a sign of poor writing and/or POV problems. Lightbreather (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Four paragraphs is plenty. Can we change it to three? Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
10. Oppose Our guidelines are blunt because when it is clever people can WP:IAR. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
11. Oppose. I'm all in favor of WP:IAR about lead length, but I think the existing wording is flexible enough, while not becoming meaningless. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
12. Oppose The current wording isn't hard and fast at all: "it should ideally contain" and "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule". Adabow (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

    Based on previous conversations here, some people believe those two phrases are contradictory: "ideal" leads are always, without exception, no more than four paragraphs, but "bad" (or "non-ideal") leads are not absolutely prohibited for typical articles. I've seen people at GA reviews demand that the blank line between two short paragraphs be removed because (even though it's "not absolute rule"), only four paragraphs can be accepted as GA per the earlier statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

    I'd be fine with changing "ideally" to "generally," which is an option I've been thinking about since yesterday (non-Misplaced Pages time, meaning since the 27th). Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

    Flyer22, I think that would be an improvement. It would resolve the apparent "contradiction" that some people find in the current wording. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

13. Oppose Yes the lead should generally be 3 or 4 paragraphs IMO. If it is too long than it should be shortened. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Am in favour of a hard limit. A lead more than four paragraphs is too long. --LT910001 (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

    LT910001 , the problem with a "hard limit" defined in paragraphs is that 18 sentences divided between four paragraphs and the same 18 sentences divided between five paragraphs is the same length. Adding a blank line in the middle of paragraph #4 does not actually make it any longer. The only real difference is that the five-paragraph version may be slightly better for reading comprehension (shorter paragraphs are more readable). Do you really support four very long paragraphs, or would you prefer some method of actually keeping the leads shorter (like a word count)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

15. Oppose while granting that there may be some articles that need longer lead sections. (If they really do, that would be a case for common sense and WP:IAR.) I understand the difficulty of summarizing a long article in 4 paragraphs, but I believe it can be done in the vast majority of cases, which is why I think this rule should stay as is. Yes it's a bit arbitrary, but I don't think softening it will lead to an improvement for the encyclopedia. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
16. Oppose. I think four paragraphs is just fine for length of the intro sect. — Cirt (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
17. Oppose: Four paragraphs is just fine. Too long lead sections cause them not to be digestable easily enough, what defeats the main reason behind the very existence of lead sections. Also, if we go to five paragraphs, then we'd later go to six and so on, what would make little sense. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
18. Oppose: An article for which a lead summary requires more than 4 paragraphs likely should be split. • Astynax 05:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
19. Oppose if you know all the rules you know the rules don't need to be softened. WP:IAR If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it. Use common sense. It can't get any softer than that. If it calls for more than four paeagraphs then it can be easily explained on the talk page.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Flyer22. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
21. Oppose, with comment It's already a soft rule, not a hard one; I don't think it needs softening further. If one is worried about inducing people to overpack the four paragraphs, I would not be averse to an addition to the "Elements of the lead" section explaining that (e.g.) "This guideline is more about overall length than the number of paragraphs per se. It should not be used to justify combining paragraphs which read better split." 71.41.210.146 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
22. Oppose. The guideline already allows for exceptions (bold added): "it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs," "should normally be no more than four paragraphs," "should usually be no longer than four paragraphs." SlimVirgin 16:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
23. Oppose I think the current wording of WP:LEADLENGTH allows enough flexibility for exceptional cases. Sasata (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment How long is a paragraph? Lugnuts 14:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Johnbod, above in the support softening section, you stated, "At least the current wording encourages over-short paras in the lead." I don't understand how " should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs" encourages over-short paras in the lead. Care to explain? Flyer22 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that he meant "discourages", not "encourages". Axl ¤ 15:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, changed! Sorry. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Lugnuts makes a very good point IMO. In giving an overview of the article, there may be more natural breaks in some articles than others, so a five paragraph lede could in effect be shorter than a three paragraph lede. Why not introduce a sensible word limit i.e. 100–1000 words? Having a lower bound may encourage avoidance of one sentence ledes. A lede is supposed to be a brief overview of the article, so key here is that it's brief, and the number of paragraphs isn't really the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's unclear to me whether the goal with this change is to support leads that have five (perhaps short) paragraphs, or to discourage long ones. I think it would be desirable to state that a good lead normally has more than one sentence, and I'm uncertain that the paragraph count is the best way to express the size.

Here are stats from some recent TFAs:

(The number of characters excludes spaces.) As you can see, all of them have the same number of paragraphs, but one has 67 words per paragraph and another has 123 words per paragraph, so it's nearly twice as long. A word count might be a better description: more than 50 words, less than 500? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? The existing system has worked well. Show me an article that really needs a fifth paragraph and we will talk. But a paragraph is more than just words. I'm not going to go back to junior high English, but there should be a structure there. I just don't see any reason why someone needs to do that five times.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Precisely because of structure, and that junior-high concept that each paragraph should have a single main topic. For example, in writing about a disease, you might reasonably want these single topics to be addressed:

1. What it is (e.g., it's a parasitic infection, what the pathogen is, how one is exposed to it)
2. What the symptoms are (e.g., itchy eyes, allergic reactions)
3. What the treatments are (e.g., drugs, vaccines)
4. What the prognosis is (e.g., curable if treated soon enough, blindness if not)
5. What the sociocultural history is (e.g., affects primarily poor rural people, causes economic damage)

That's five topics, and five topics could reasonably be organized into five short paragraphs. Some people (probably including your composition teachers) would even say that five paragraphs would proper, and that you cannot write a proper topic sentence or properly constructed paragraphs unless you split out each significant topic into its own paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment In my vote I mentioned WP:LEADLENGTH and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I might add that sentence length - especially in the lead - is key. A good tool to use when checking readability is the Flesch-Kincaid readability index calculator. There is no good reason for general articles to ever rise above Grade level 12 readability. Keep sentences readable! Lightbreather (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Probably the highest profile article with a five paragraph lead is World War II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Tangent: I recently put together m:Concise Misplaced Pages#A summary of existing short-options, using an example which many involved in this thread might find useful/interesting. The page itself is a recurring (perennial) proposal at Enwiki and at Meta, to create a "synopsis version" of Misplaced Pages articles. This most recent one is from late 2012. –Quiddity (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Regarding the latest "votes" on this matter, I have expressed that inappropriate WP:Canvassing may have taken place, and may still be taking place, regarding this WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

More precisely, you accused Spinningspark of canvassing, without any direct evidence, and Spinningspark denied any knowledge of it. It seems plausible enough to me that the newer incoming contributors are instead coming from neutral sources such as the Signpost discussion report. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I asked. And there was no better person to ask, since the WP:RfC is based on me and Spinningspark being at opposite ends of this topic, and Spinningspark is a WP:Administrator (like I noted on Spinningspark's talk page, there's been a recent wave of WP:Administrator "votes"). To me, asking Spinningspark that question is not an accusation. Does it imply that I think Spinningspark may have contacted multiple editors off-Misplaced Pages about this WP:RfC to influence the WP:RfC in Spinningspark's favor? Sure. But I kept an open mind about Spinningspark not having done that. Your commentary about the recent influx is plausible. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You asked, and he replied: "Nothing to do with me. I was trying to quietly ignore the whole issue." And then instead of taking his word for it you posted two diatribes in less than an hour, dripping with implied accusation, ending one with "But as it stands..." and the other with "but still..." -- those ellipses full of innuendo. Of course you were accusing him. You think that because some admins pitch up, that means they may have been canvassed? The Signpost theory seems much more "plausible" to me. --Stfg (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

And, predictably, just because an editor sternly addresses the matter of inappropriate WP:Canvassing, that editor is accused of being WP:Uncivil. Spinningspark having stated "I was trying to quietly ignore the whole issue." and then refraining from replying any further does not inspire confidence in me that he was/is not aware of any WP:Canvassing on this matter; to me, if that comment is about the recent influx instead of the WP:RfC as a whole, it implies that while he may not have been involved in any WP:Canvassing, he may have known it was taking place. It certainly implies that WP:Canvassing crossed his mind, just like it did mine, with regard to this recent influx. My view? I did not accuse Spinningspark of a thing with regard to WP:Canvassing, and I don't care how much you or anyone else here piles up stating that I did. When I see something that can quite clearly be interpreted as fishy/sketchy going on, I often mention it; that goes for Misplaced Pages as well. And I don't care how uncordial mentioning/questioning it may seem. Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Full discussion here for documentation in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments since The Signpost report have only been two-to-one in favor of a change. If anyone were canvassing, then he did a rather poor job of it. I don't think we need to worry about this.

I still think that we might do better to produce a guideline based on word count than on highly variable "paragraphs". What do you think of that idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would would rather stick with the four-paragraphs guideline as a general rule, per my and others' comments on that above. It's worked well for years. Like I stated, I don't believe in fixing things that are not broken, especially based on a single bad experience. Tweaking things? Sure. I definitely think that the guideline needs to be clear about not overpacking paragraphs just to fit the four-paragraphs rule; the guideline should also perhaps do a better job at letting editors know that not exceeding four paragraphs is not always ideal. Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note. Since March 10th, which is when The Signpost report seems to have been posted, comments have been more than two-to-one in favor of a change at this point (March 14th); because of APerson's support vote on March 11th, that also slightly applies to March 12th (when WhatamIdoing made the "two-to-one" comment above). There have only been three oppose votes since March 10th. APerson numbered the posts today to help keep count. Though WP:Consensus is not solely about voting, having the support and oppose comments numbered certainly makes the WP:Consensus process easier to assess; I'm not sure that the comments that are labeled "Comment" should count as a vote, but, given what they state, they seem to (that includes my comment for being open to softening the guideline). Flyer22 (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles

Should WP:BOLDTITLE be modified to clarify the acceptability of the lead sentence of election articles? Many election articles are written with a lead sentence that may violate a strict reading of WP:BOLDTITLE. For example:

• United States presidential election, 2016 begins: The United States presidential election of 2016 will be the 58th quadrennial U.S. presidential election and is scheduled for Tuesday, November 8, 2016.
• United States presidential election, 2012 begins: The United States presidential election of 2012 was the 57th quadrennial presidential election.
• California gubernatorial election, 2014 begins: The 2014 California gubernatorial election will take place on November 4, 2014, to elect the Governor of California.
• California gubernatorial election, 2010 begins: The 2010 California gubernatorial election was held November 2, 2010 to elect the Governor of California.
• French presidential election, 2007 begins: The 2007 French presidential election, the ninth of the Fifth French Republic was held to elect the successor to Jacques Chirac as president of France for a five-year term.
• New York City mayoral election, 2013 begins: The 2013 New York City mayoral election occurred on November 5, 2013, along with elections for comptroller, public advocate, borough presidents, and members of the New York City Council.
• London mayoral election, 2012 begins: The London mayoral election of 2012 was an election held on Thursday 3 May 2012, to elect the Mayor of London, it was won by Boris Johnson of the Conservative Party.

I believe that these and similar examples from other years, states, cities, and some countries, make appropriate use of bold in lead sentences of Misplaced Pages articles. I would change some of them after their bolded parts, e.g.:

• California gubernatorial election, 2010: The 2010 California gubernatorial election was held November 2, 2010, to elect the Governor of California.
• French presidential election, 2007: The 2007 French presidential election, the ninth of the Fifth French Republic, was held to elect the successor to Jacques Chirac as president of France for a five-year term.
• London mayoral election, 2012: The London mayoral election of 2012 was held on Thursday 3 May 2012, to elect the Mayor of London; the winner was Boris Johnson of the Conservative Party.

The problem is that these (original or modified as I've suggested here) and thousands of related examples appear to violate this rule: "In general, if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear." But these uses of bold are too good to change. I believe the rule should be rewritten to allow this use of bold in lead sentences. Moreover, I believe that articles about specific elections should be written with a minor variation of the title in bold, and Misplaced Pages rules should encourage this. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment IMO, we should write the lead following the conventions of good style, and then, *if* the title of the article happens to appear, it should be bolded. These examples have been twisted in order to fit in the title. As for whether we should relax the rules to allow bolding approximations of the article title, I do that, but I don't know if formally allowing it would help avoid that problem, or make the leads even worse. — kwami (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. The aim behind WP:BOLDTITLE is to prevent distortions of the language in an attempt to get the title into the first sentence, and also to prevent seemingly random bolding of words that appear in the title. The bolding is to reinforce for the reader the topic of the article, and also to reassure the reader they have arrived at the right article for their search term, particularly if they have used an alternative term.

Where there is a slight variation between the title and the opening sentence, perhaps the question should be: why is there a variation? Sometimes the title includes a non-WP:Natural disambiguation, usually involving a parenthesis, such as Mercury (planet). The opening sentence does not include the disambiguation term, and that is understood.

In the cases above, the title is comma disambiguated - though perhaps WP:Natural disambiguation would be more appropriate, as the date is not so much a disambiguation as a fact that is an essential part of the topic - as indicated by the opening sentence. Other sources sometimes use the natural form - Britannica, CNN, presidentialelection.com.

I suppose my thinking is that if there is no clear reason why the title and opening title should be different, that editors look to harmonize them. Either the disambiguation comma is the more common form, or the natural disambiguation is. Giving readers two difference versions is perhaps not helpful. So - either change the title to match the opening sentence, or change the opening sentence to match the title, depending on which form is the most common. SilkTork 08:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that bolding like these is fine (but I'm not sure a change to the guideliene is necessary). I also agree with SilkTork that the comma disambiguated titles are odd - I never did understand why something like the 2012 United States presidential election is found at "United States presidential election, 2012" --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)