Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

Lists in leads

I noticed some disagreement in the Solar System article regarding a possible presentation of lists in the lead section by @CactiStaccingCrane. To me, this article seems like a place where such a relatively rare presentation is plausible—the topic involves a definition of a medium-sized (not small as to fit into prose, not large as to not belong in the lead) list. The consensus in reversion seems to be that prose is generally always preferred—if that should be the case, then it should be stated explicitly here, I think.
Personally, I think there is nothing inherently wrong with lists in the lead section in specific cases, perhaps like the Solar System article—save for the argument that it may require too much vertical space, but I'm skeptical of that. Thoughts? Remsense留 21:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Praemonitus and @OmegaMantis as they have recently revert my edits. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This is horrible, and not a good idea. Also, considering that the article passed FAR a little over a year ago, why does that lead need to be messed with at all? XOR'easter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I, as a general-interest lay reader, read this lede this afternoon, and it sure felt that bulleting would help. After reading that lede, I was just a little bewildered by all those details and lists, and can remember only a little.

This is ironic (and sad) because Solar System went onto my Watchlist 10 or 12 years ago when I praised the then-current lede as nearly ideal: enough information for the casual reader and enough pointers to entice that reader to sections in the body of the article. But, as with many good ledes, successive additions and amendments over the years have destroyed those qualities. The lede to New York City has suffered similar elephantiasis by accretion. @Remsense, CastiStaccingCrane, SandyGeorgia, and Nikkimaria: —— Shakescene (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep ... if a lead needs a list, it probably has too much detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, if this is the consensus, I think it would be worthwhile to explicitly state in this guideline. Remsense留 02:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone suggest adding a list to a lead before, so that seems WP:CREEPy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, perhaps. This is not my first time to the best of my recollection, but I figured it was worth a chat about. Remsense留 02:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

New York City (858 words in the lead) ... ack! A good reason we should be giving some guidance on lead size, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

how do you feel about Solar System lede as it presently exists? Remsense留 02:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It's fine. It was fine when it passed FAR. From the standpoint of proportionally summarizing the rest of the article the way ledes are supposed to do, it was better in the version that passed FAR. XOR'easter (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start a discussion over the presentation in particular except as a general example of the guideline. I have no real opinion on that presentation other than it being plausible. Remsense留 02:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should link prose in the lead here. Moxy- 02:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Tend to agree with "if a lead needs a list, it probably has too much detail." And we don't need to add a line item about this to MOS:LEAD per WP:CREEP and MOS:BLOAT. This kind of dispute is virtually unheard of (probably because everyone intuitively understand that lists are not how to write a lead), so there is no reason to address it here. MoS is already over-long, and no new rule should be added to it unless it is needed to deal with long-term, recurrent editorial strife of a particular sort.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I probably should have reverted the lead lists as soon as they appeared in the Solar System, but I am tired of fighting every little format issue. I was asked to take another look by CactiStaccingCrane and immediately tagged the list issue. Sorry if it caused such a fuss. While it is a detail-oriented article, to me the lead was just fine without the bullet lists. Praemonitus (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

One of the general problems with bulleted lists is that they draw attention, which means that they draw attention away from the sentences and paragraphs. Our guidance in the lead is probably correct, but our guidance elsewhere may be less than perfect. We recommend that people write something like:

The main causes of scaryitis are age and a high-fat diet.  Some less common risk factors include:

• eating bacon,
• drinking alcoholic beverages,
• breathing dust,
• running after dark,
• talking to strangers, and
• playing in the street.

It's easy for the eye to just skip right past the common points and focus on the list. Since everything in the lead is supposed to be important (at some level), we don't really want to format the lead so that the eye skips over any of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good additional reason to not use vertical lists in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

An example

Wow, look at this one an an example of how not to write a lead sentence:

The Red Sea (Modern Arabic: البحر الأحمر, romanized: al-Baḥr al-ʾAḥmar, Medieval Arabic: بحر القلزم, romanized: Baḥr al-Qulzum; Biblical Hebrew: יַם-סוּף, romanized: Yam Sūp̄ or Hebrew: הַיָּם הָאָדְוֹם, romanized: hayYām hāʾĀḏōm; Coptic: ⲫⲓⲟⲙ ⲛ̀ϩⲁϩ Phiom Enhah or ⲫⲓⲟⲙ ⲛ̀ϣⲁⲣⲓ Phiom ǹšari; Amarigna: ቀይ ባሕሪ Qey Bahr; Sidama language: Duumo Baara; Tigrinya: ቀይሕ ባሕሪ Qeyih Bahri; Somali: Badda Cas; Afar: "Qasa Bad") is a seawater inlet of the Indian Ocean, lying between Africa and Asia. CUA 27 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that is so unreadable. Good example of when a footnote would be a better choice. Schazjmd (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Holy crap. We need to diff that as a prime example of what not to do (then actually fix it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It was fixed weeks ago. Gawaon (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in a footnote or anywhere in the article. What's next, translate Indian Ocean into every one of the hundreds of languages of India, every language of Pakistan, every language of Indonesia, every language of Kenya and Tanzania and Mozambique and South Africa and Australia, Malagasy, Somali, Burmese? And so on? Largoplazo (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Well... it's not unreasonable to provide the "local" names as alternates. But I'd suggest doing that in an infobox or a section towards the end of the article (similar to ==Etymology==), especially when there are more than about two alternate names. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Pronunciation

@SMcCandlish, Gawaon, MicrobiologyMarcus, Tpbradbury, SandyGeorgia, Femke, Thinker78, Fgnievinski, CUA 27, and Eloquence: @WhatamIdoing, Remsense, BlueboyLINY, Sammi Brie, InfiniteNexus, Trovatore, XOR'easter, David Eppstein, Hawkeye7, and Lowercase sigmabot III: Hello. Which is the correct interpretation of the "Pronunciation" section? I've always thought it was this: when there's a name whose pronunciation isn't commonly well-known to English-speakers (which includes a huge number of foreign names), the pronunciation should be added in the original language (that's why the Help/IPA pages exist). I'm asking because a user, Steelkamp, has started removing loads of pronunciation of Italian names because of "MOS:LEADPRON"; see here. Does any of you know the pronunciation of the Italian name "Zappia"? Or "Terenzini"? There're about 10.000 pages containing the pronunciation of Italian names: if his interpretation of the section "Pronunciation" is the right one, almost all of them should be removed. The same goes for any other language (Spanish, Dutch, Japanese...). I think that the correct interpretation is mine, but I'd like to hear your opinion. Thanks. Thiswouldbeauser (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

None of these people are Italians. They are all Australians or other English-speakers whose surnames happen to be of Italian origin, and who would not be using "full-Italian" pronunciations of their names, unless there's some unusual exception among them, so the pronunciation removals appear to be the correct move here. Injecting Italian-IPA pronunciation guides for them is WP:OR that doesn't reflect the reality of how these people are referred to or (in all probability) how they say their own names. It's about the same as putting an Irish Gaelic pronunciation key of [ˈʃaːn̪ˠ oː ˈkahəsˠiː] on the article of an American named Sean O'Casey. Removing the Italian pronunciation guide from actual Italians like Giovanni Gronchi oder Pippo Barzizza, on the other hand, would be a mistake and should be reverted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Steelkamp, do you have any thoughts about how editors should determine which names do/don't benefit from pronunciation information? I didn't see any names in the list you removed that personally felt a need for the IPA, but perhaps other people have different ideas.

@Thiswouldbeauser, Template:Infobox person supports |pronunciation= parameter, and sometimes a suitable compromise is to provide the information in the infobox (if one already exists) instead of in the first sentence.

The ideal is a recording from the Wikipedia:Voice intro project: then you know exactly how that person says their name at a given point in time. There is not necessarily a fixed pronunciation. I know several people who have changed the pronunciation of their names, and several more whose pronunciation depends on which language they're speaking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I for one have no idea how to pronounce Gaetano. I don't think nationality is relevant but rather how self-evident the pronunciation is. Per MOS:LEADPRON, If the name of the article has a pronunciation that is not apparent from its spelling, include its pronunciation in parentheses after the first occurrence of the name. If anything, It is preferable to move pronunciation guides to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence. Therefore, I don't think this removal instance was appropriate. Although there is a point about OR and probably best to let a local handle the pronunciation. But if we come to this, pronunciation of names can be atomized by each subjective pronunciation by each household. Then we would need reliable sources to find out the pronunciation of each person's name even if the spelling is completely the same as the next person. Because how do we know how they want to pronounce their names? I think it may suffice to provide the general pronunciation of the name.

I would say interpretation of LEADPRON is on a case by case basis and subject to consensus. Thinker78 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that they're removing the pronunciations in Englisch or in another language of the names of native English-speaking people from English-speaking countries whose names originate in a language other than English? If the latter, good! Indeed, just a few days ago I removed the transcription into Greek of the name of US actor Jason Mantzoukas. It's just not relevant to an article about someone how their ancestors whose native language wasn't English might have spelled or pronounced their name. Similarly, the article about Kai Bird notes in the "early life" section that his father named him for a university acquaintance of his, Kai-Yu Hsu. I thought that was already of borderline relevance, but when the article went on to tell us that Kai means "mustard" in Chinese (芥; Mandarin: gài or jiè), I couldn't take it any more. What matters is how their name is pronounced and written in English, and the etymology is almost absolutely going to be irrelevant. Largoplazo (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think not including pronunciation can provide for phonetics confusion in some cases, like in the Kai bird (kai as in may or kai as in kite?). Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

My point is that a phonetic representation should, if given at all, should be only for how he pronounces his name, not how his namesake pronounced it in Chinese. Largoplazo (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There is also WP:MOSPRON,

If a common English rendering of the foreign name exists (Venice, Nikita Khrushchev), its pronunciation, if necessary, should be indicated before the foreign one. For English words and names, pronunciation should normally be omitted for common words or when obvious from the spelling; use it only for foreign loanwords (coup d'etat), names with counterintuitive pronunciation (Leicester, Ralph Fiennes), or very unusual words (synecdoche).

Pronunciation should be indicated sparingly, as parenthetical information disturbs the normal flow of the text and introduces clutter. In the article text, it should be indicated only where it is directly relevant to the subject matter, such as describing a word's etymology or explaining a pun. Less important pronunciations should be omitted altogether, relegated to a footnote, or to a dedicated section in the article or infobox.

If there was already a pronunciation, instead of taking it out I would say it should be considered how evident its pronunciation is and whether it is best instead to move it to a footnote. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There are three reasons why I removed those pronunciations:

1. Because of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Pronunciation, which states that "If the name of the article has a pronunciation that is not apparent from its spelling, include its pronunciation in parentheses after the first occurrence of the name." The pronunciations I removed are mostly obvious from their spelling. For example, the pronunciation of "Tony Zappia" is obvious from how it is spelt. There may be some borderline cases, such as Gaetano "Guy" Zangari, which I would not oppose re-adding the pronunciation.
2. Because none of them had any citations. Even if the pronunciation is not obvious, there should be a source indicating how someone in Australia (not Italy) would pronounce the name.
3. Because those pronunciations were originally added to Wikipedia by a sock puppet of a banned user. User:Thiswouldbeauser is another one of this person's sock puppets, and this account should be blocked and globally locked.

Steelkamp (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"how someone in Australia (not Italy) would pronounce the name" is the key matter here, since an Italian-language pronunciation would almost certainly be wrong for an Australian. In many languages, pronunciation is fixed and is actually algorithmically determinable, but maybe sources are proper for how a particular Italian-originating name is pronounced in Australia (or the US, or other places). That said, WP:V only requires that non-controversial claims be verifiable not verified, so any modern public figure's pronuncation would in fact be verifiable with enough leg work, like finding them mentioned in a TV news report. That is, the lack of citations doesn't look like a good removal reason if someone adds an Australian pronunciation that is probably correct, even if the OR of claiming that an Australian uses an Italian-language pronunciation is a good reason for removal (the claim that this is the pronunciation used is not a non-controversial one, since it is very unlikey to be true). The sock reason isn't very good either, though; we don't blanket auto-revert everything that socks and banned editors do. Just the unlikelihood of Australians using Italian pronuncation is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• About 2: "Because none of them had any citations". Per MOS:LEADCITE,

The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.

• About 3: "Because those pronunciations were originally added to Wikipedia by a sock puppet of a banned user."
  • Per WP:BLOCKEVASION policy,

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

But I see that Thiscouldbeauser made the reverted edit on 7 June 2023 whereas they were blocked on 19 June 2023. Therefore, the editor at the time they made the edit was not yet even blocked so the freely revert provision does not apply.

• The essay WP:SOCKSTRIKE also has good guidance,

In general, it isn't advisable to try to revert every single edit a sockpuppet has ever made. We shouldn't restore typos, bad grammar, misinformation, or BLP violations just because a sockpuppet is the one who fixed the problem. On the flip side, clear vandalism or purely disruptive edits should be reverted whether or not an obvious sockpuppet did it. Try to take a reasonable sampling of the account's edits, and mass-revert them only if it appears that none of them are good.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Steelkamp Thinker78 (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Generic answer.

Thank you, I've just read your replies. All right. Should the consensus be that the Italian pronunciations of not Italian persons' names have to be removed (I hope it won't be), then any of you can remove each of the remaining Italian pronunciations of Australian politicians. But, in that case, I also strongly invite you to remove the Italian pronunciations of the following "Americans" (not "Italians") whose surnames happen to be of Italian origin: Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci... To begin with. These are just a few of the many "American" (not "Italian") actors with Italian surnames, I can provide more of them and I can provide many more similar cases out of America and of the world of cinema too. The same will go for other languages than Italian, obviously. This would be the correct move, right? Come on... I hope that the consensus will be different!

• Specific answer to my accuser.

I'm replying to your 3 points @Steelkamp:.

1. So you knew that in Italian the surname "Zappia" isn't read /'zapja/ but /dzap'pia/? Assuming that you knew, how many English-speakers know well Italian phonetics without committing errors, in your opinion?
2. The local pronunciation according to English phonetics of Italian names is something else than the original pronunciation of the name in Italian, one thing doesn't exclude the other. Do you think it's useful to add the English pronunciation of the Italian name? Please add it, I have no objections. But then add this piece of information instead of removing information that's already there!
3. Oh my... This is the real reason for all you've done, isn't it? Ok, ok... It was my mistake, let me explain. I'm not Thiscouldbeauser, I'm a different person. Why have I chosen such a similar username to register? I'm wondering, it was a stupid move. I did it because I noticed a lot of Italian pronunciations badly transcribed and it was Thiscouldbeauser to add them. He isn't Italian, almost certainly he's Australian and it's clear that he doesn't know the correct Italian pronunciations that he added. Look at any of his edits about pronunciations: none of them is similar to mine. So I registered an account with a similar name to correct them. If I hadn't chosen this name, or edited those pages one hour before or after, you wouldn't have noticed and reverted my corrections. Luckily, most of the pronunciations had already been corrected by other users, so I had just to fix a few. But now you've removed a large part of them... Read the generic answer I've just written a few lines above. However, I'm not Thiscouldbeauser. You've asked a check: the checkers will verify that I'm writing from Italy because my current IP is Italian. I bet that Thiscouldbeauser (and all his previous sockpuppets) had a Australian IPs. This will be the ultimate proof that I'm another person whose only mistake was choosing a banned user's name.

I'd like this last point to be read also by @Extraordinary Writ:. Thiswouldbeauser (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The pronunciations in Italian of "Coppola", "Pesci", etc., are irrelevant to the respective articles' subjects and should be removed. The pronunciation Zappia uses in English isn't 100% obvious (stressed on the "Zap" or on the "i"?) and it's useful to provide it. I just noticed that Tony Zappia was born in Italy so the Italian pronunciation might be considered relevant. Largoplazo (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

If articles on Americans like Martin Scorsese are using Italian IPA keys to give pronunciations, then that is wrong and should be fixed. That does not mean pronunciation keys for such people should be removed forever, since the pronuciation of such a name is not obvious, and the correct pronunciation in English for that person is easy to establish. The others mostly would also benefit from that as well. Maybe the Australian ones would, too. But in any case where one of our articles is giving patently incorrect pronuncation using an Italian IPA key for American or Australian or other such persons, just removing the falsehood is the correct move. Someone is free to put a corrected version in again later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Many people from immigrant families will pronounce their name one way within their family and/or ethnic community, and another way to their adopted community (or general public or media as the case may be). One shouldn't presume the pronunciations are necessarily wrong without checking the article body/history/citation first. If an RS says Scorsese's grandmother pronounced it such-and-such with him, then that pronunciation may belong equally in the lede, and it may well be appropriate to use Italian IPA in such a case. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, whatever your final will be I'll accept it. To me, one more piece of information is better that one less. At least I'm happy that I've made possible this discussion which will be a point of reference for future cases about this matter. Thiswouldbeauser (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the point we're trying to get accross is that an Italan-language pronunciation guide for an Australian or American who happens to have an Italian-derived name is usually going to not be information at all but misinformation, and should be replaced by a pronunciation guide for how that name is treated in the native form of English in these countries. And this might even vary by biographical subject. E.g. Ian MacKaye and his family pronounce it /məˈkaɪ/ while various other Americans may use /məˈkeɪ/; what the "proper" Scottish usual pronuciation is (/məˈkaɪ/, if you're wondering) isn't relevant to their biographies. And even that's a Scottish English pronunciation; perhaps more pertinently to this discussion, the non-Anglicized pronunciation in the Scottish Gaelic langauge – /mĩçˈkʲɤj/ – would be even less relevant (maybe not relevant even to a native-born Scot unless they are a Gaelic speaker). This also actually raises a side point about "Italian"; what we English-speakers think of as Italian is really a standardized and "prestige" version of the Florentine dialect within the Italian dialect continuum, and there are many other dialects, with quite a lot of pronunciation divergence; thus, the regionally "proper" pronunciation of an Italan surname is apt to vary considerably from general-Italian defaults. E.g., a Sardinian or Venetian surname would have a non-English pronunciation guide that might have considerable differences from how that same string of letters would be pronounced in the widespread Florentine version of Italian. This kind of consideration can affect a lot of languages and surnames; e.g. a variant of mine, McCandless, should be properly rendered in an Ulster Scots pronunciation key, which is closer to Scottish than to other Irish English dialects, because it is an Ulster Scots version of the name (not counting the later diaspora in North America, Australia, etc.). It gets much more complicated with something like Chinese, which is really a wide geographical cluster of distinct languages that just share a common writing system; a Cantonese name would not be given a Mandarin pronunciation guide, and so on, nor would either likely apply to a Canadian with a Chinese-derived family name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

To emphasize the point: Some languages have a "correct" pronunciation for names, and all people with that name use that pronunciation. I have heard that this is so for French, for instance. It is not true for English. Many common names use varied pronunciations and often the only way to know which one to use is to find out from the subject. So please do not add pronunciations to biographies of people in English-speaking countries unless you have a high-quality source for that pronunciation. Using the pronunciation from another language is very likely to be wrong. Using a typical pronunciation from the same dialect of English is still likely to be wrong enough of the time to cause problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't share your opinion necessarily about such requirement as I indicated previously. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

No. For living people, WP:BLP is very clear: Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. This cannot be evaded by editorial opinion or local consensus. Material in the lead that summarizes later sourced material can avoid repeating the citation in the lead, but that's not what we're talking about here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what I said contradicts WP:BLP. As I indicated, The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. The applicability of policies is also subject to consensus. Editors have different interpretations about them all the time. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

You are quoting guidelines about whether to include citations for material in the lead that summarizes later sourced material. Pronunciations in the lead are not a summary of later material, and cannot piggyback on the citations for later sourced material. Therefore, they need their own citations. Being in the lead is not a valid excuse for committing original research: there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Per Verfiability,

All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.

Not all cases need a citation. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I think youse two might be talking past each other a little. If the lead says something, even in a BLP, that is also in the body with a citation, there is no need to also put the citation in the lead, unless the claim is something that might seem controversial to or "likely to be challenged" by the reader. Otherwise our leads on many articles, especially BLPs would basically be unreadably festooned with a citation or two or five every few words. But if the lead makes a claim that is not in the body, then obviously it needs a citation for it right there in the lead. (Same goes for making claims in an infobox that are not in the article, though this is usually a mistake, except for specialized infoboxes, like {{Taxobox}} and various medicine and chemistry ones, that contain various technical detailia).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you basically are saying what Eppstein is saying though. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, agreeing with someone wouldn't be a fault and is something I should arguably do more often). V doesn't require an inline citation for a claim in the lead (or anywhere else) that isn't challenged or likely to be challenged, but years after that material was written our site-wide standard is to use inline citations for everything; the days of "general references" (dumped at the bottom of the page without any demonstration what claims are sourceable to which locations in what sources) being good enough indefinitely are long over. BLP has since then also imposed more firmly stated restrictions on BLPs, but they basically appear to boil down the same thing. Even outside a BLP, all material has to be verifiable; if it is not yet verified, then it is apt to be challenged (e.g. by deletion, by {{citation needed}} oder {{dubious}}, by complaint on the talk page, etc. The BLP difference is a presumption toward deletion. The solution (BLP or not) is thus to just provide an inline citation. But for lead information that also appears elsewhere in the article and is cited there, it need not be cited in the lead, unless it is controversial (challenged or likely to be challenged).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 

Like any other piece of information on Wikipedia, proper name pronunciations should be sourced, not be the product of original thought by individual editors. This is especially true for BLPs. --JBL (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm adding just a couple of considerations.

• Besides Zappia, also "Guy" Zangari, Carlo Furletti, Franca Arena and "Phil" Barresi were born in Italy, this should be a good reason to re-add their pronunciations in Italian; I've searched the web for info about some of the remaining ones and almost all are somehow attached to their roots like most of us Italians, but I don't think that this would be enough for them.
• Adding sources for the pronunciations of Italian names isn't something useful actually, not just because Italian language has an almost 1-1 letter/sound correspondence and so it's rare that the pronunciation of an Italian name is challenged, but also and especially because the Help/IPA pages pointed to by the pronunciations normally contain sources for the pronunciations themselves, for example in the Italian help page they're in the section "External links".

Helpful information, I hope. Thiswouldbeauser (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Where someone was born isn't necessarily dispositive of anything. The elder of my sisters was born in the UK but does not use a British pronunciation of her name (/sɑːrə/ rather than /seɪrə/). What is apt to make much more difference is where they have spent most of their life.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Certainly but the intended name pronunciation really came from the people who named a person. I would say then that both the usage by the named person and the people who named her are appropriate pronunciations. Also, if a person has a difficult to pronounce name which readers have no idea how to pronounce, I find it helpful to at least provide the pronunciation according to certain general common usage rather than none. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"the intended name pronunciation really came from the people who named a person" is an OR kind of idea we couldn't employ (i.e., we neither have any sources saying this is how name pronunciation is approached, and there would be no sources available to verify such a particular with regard to the name of virtually anyone ever). It's not "helpful" to provide a pronunciation that is correct for someone from, say, Italy, when it may have no bearing on how it's pronounced with regard to a particular person in, say, Australia; it would usually be downright misinformation. We really can't go by anything but either evidence about that persons's self-declared pronunciation (e.g. in an interview), or how RS in A/V media (TV news, etc.) pronounce it with regard to that specific person, or maybe sourceable information on how it's pronounced in general in a particular country or other region, but that last is really iffy, since it may be wrong with regards to that individual, at least in a diaspora country like Australia or the US. I don't think it would be problematic to give a Mexican Spanish pronunciation of the Spanish name of someone from Mexico, since the output is pretty much algorithmically predictable. Such a claim has been made about French, but I'm skeptical because of the langues d'oïl / langues d'oc split, and it's even more dubious in Italy because of the dialect continuum there; same in Spain, and China, and etc. For Ireland, you could probably get away with a Hiberno-English key for any common anglicized Irish name, but when it came to native Irish Gaelic one, it would become problematic again, because there are significant dialectal differences between "school Irish" and several native Gaeltacht dialects that are not mutually consistent (even the very common given name Máire has very different pronunciations in different places, from roughly "Moya", through "Mahrə", to something an English speaker would probably parse as "Mazrə"), though our own article on that name is not accounting for this). Anyway, it is better for us to lack information, for want of sources, that to make up potentially (even likely) false information with guesswork.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• is an OR kind of idea we couldn't employ. We could, ceteris paribus.
• or maybe sourceable information on how it's pronounced in general. This, because otherwise pronunciation guides would be excluded for any name before audio recording was invented or for anyone whose name doesn't have such source. Also, sometimes names are illegible by people who don't know the language.
• it would usually be downright misinformation / there are significant dialectal differences / it is better for us to lack information, for want of sources, that to make up potentially (even likely) false information with guesswork. An explanatory footnote can be provided.

Regards,

Thinker78 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

No, we really couldn't. OR is forbidden in BLPs, and if you carry out your insistence on pushing OR into actual BLPs, you are likely to get blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein you are likely to get blocked. Are you warning me as an administrator or are you speculating? Thinker78 (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein Also, next time try at least for clarification instead of making likely wrong interpretations of what I intended to say. Key word is "ceteris paribus". If you don't know what it means, ask. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Even though it was inappropriate that you are warning me with a block (whether in an administrative capacity or in a speculative capacity) when you are being involved in this discussion, giving the appearance that you are trying to quash unduly the discussion, I will clarify anyway what I intended to say.

SMcCandlish wrote,

"the intended name pronunciation really came from the people who named a person" is an OR kind of idea we couldn't employ (i.e., we neither have any sources saying this is how name pronunciation is approached, and there would be no sources available to verify such a particular with regard to the name of virtually anyone ever).

I replied quoting only a small portion and addressing it with a bit, "is an OR kind of idea we couldn't employ." We could, ceteris paribus.

I thought it would develop in discussion, I did not expect someone, specially an administrator, raising issue in an unduly fashion with it.

When I said "we could", I was challenging the notion that "is an OR kind of idea" the intended name pronunciation really came from the people who named a person. Also that "there would be no sources available to verify such a particular with regard to the name of virtually anyone ever". There are no guarantees and I don't agree with the idea that there would be no sources available whatsoever for verification of the name pronunciation as intended by the people who named a person. It is entirely a possibility that there could be reliable sources that back verification of the pronunciation by said people.

When I said "ceteris paribus" my intention was to indicate that all things being equal (the meaning of ceteris paribus), meaning availability of reliable sources that back the pronunciation as used by the named person or by the people who gave them their name, WE COULD use the intended name pronunciation really came from the people who named a person. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I really don't see any point to this digression. There is no need, ever, to say (with obscure Latinisms or otherwise) what amounts to "it wouldn't be OR if we have reliable sources saying it", since by definition it is then no longer OR but reliably sourceable. [sigh] And pointing out that if someone pushes OR into actual BLPs they'll probably get blocked isn't a threat to block you in particular, much less a suppression of your input, it's an observation of what would likely happen if someone did push OR into actual BLPs (and a perfectly reasonable thing for an admin to say in either capacity or for anyone to say). I just used the word "block" twice in this post, agreeing with David Eppstein. Does that make me threatening anyone? It's a word that comes up often in discussions of policy, like this one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Not to belabor this, but there's a difference between how you represent what DE wrote and the literal words they wrote, and imo they were indeed inappropriate. And fwiw in this thread, I still have no idea how "Zappia" is pronounced for Italian-Americans, Italian-Australians, Italian-Italians, or within Tony Zappia's family. (Never heard of him.) I guess in reply to Steelkamp and Thismustbeauser: it's not obvious how Italian speakers will pronounce stuff unless they're from some specific area. Immigrants are right out. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's a worthwhile test-case, even about an Australian since that's what this started with: Robert Menzies has no pronunciation key. This Scottish surname is traditionally pronounced roughly "Meng-iss" or "Ming-iss" in Scotland and by some in the Scottish diaspora (because the z in it was originally not a z but a yogh (ȝ), which was typographically replaced with a z as a stand-in in early print), but is often pronounced "Men-zeez" in the diaspora, especially from the 20th century onward (plus also some other variants like "Meng-giss" or "Ming-giss"). So how did this particular Menzies pronounce his name during his lifetime, how is it typically pronounced by Australians in reference to him today, if they differ then which should be present, and by what RS route would we establish either?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It is regular practice to offer multiple ways of pronunciation in the first sentence in some cases. Check MOS:PRONPLACEMENT, it has an example. I have to mention that I have a Spanish last name which I pronounce one way in Spanish and I pronounce it differently for ease of pronunciation of others who speak English. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Pronunciations are not standard or stable and so should not be put into leads per WP:LEADCLUTTER, WP:NOTDICT, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, &c. As a fresh example, the current news about Ram Mandir led to Schwa deletion in Indo-Aryan languages which explains that North Indians pronounce the Sanskrit Rama as Ram. Such regional accents are common and the leads of articles are not the place to detail such complexities and variations Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Contemporary Australian news coverage found by searching for his name on YouTube uses the "MEN-zeez" pronounciation. I find that personally convincing, but inadequate as the sort of reliable source we could use for a pronunciation key in an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why that's inadequate? If we had a contemporary Australian news article saying "Mr Menzies (pronounced MEN-zeez)" I think that would clearly be fine; I don't see why news in video format should be assumed to be less reliable - except, of course, when there are conflicting sources? In this case, there are numerous reports from the time, and they all seem consistent on this matter. TSP (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, their accent is international newscaster, not bogan; I don't think that should make a difference in this case, but it's something to be careful of. For another, I have heard (Australian) sportscasters disagree among themselves about the proper pronunciation of Australian names (in the case I'm thinking of, whether the first syllable of the name Maya uses the vowel from day or from night). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Robert Menzies seems well documented. For example:

Menzies , Robert Gordon Australian statesman men - ziz / ' mɛnziz / This name can be pronounced either as above or as ming - iss . The latter pronunciation is traditional in most parts of Scotland

— Oxford BBC Guide to Pronunciation (2006)

But that's the BBC in 2006. Regional accents are more common on the BBC nowadays and then Australian accents are another moving target too. Trying to track this across time and geographies seems beyond our scope. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's worse than with any use of sources, really - caution always needs to be taken on how authoritative a source can be expected to be on a given subject. For minor figures, the broadcaster very probably never asked, and we can omit if there's inconsistency or we don't think we can trust the sources. (I'm reminded of this clip from early in Jeremy Corbyn's career where the BBC calls him Robin Corbyn - he was a fairly obscure figure, they got his name wrong, it happens.) But where we have a wide assortment of news broadcasts from a country, talking about someone who was that country's Prime Minister for nearly 20 years, with a consistent pronunciation, I don't see any reason to assume that none of the journalists ever checked - any more than we need to look at the wealth of printed material and say "are we sure he didn't spell it Menzeys?".

As far as I can see, this section is discussing the question "should we include pronunciation guides where we don't have a reliable source relating to the specific individual?" - in this case, I think we do.

(It would, it's true, be even better if we had a recording of him saying it himself - annoyingly I've found at least two speeches where Menzies said his own name, and of which recordings exist, but both recordings omit the relevant section!) TSP (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I think in many cases it would suffice to have a reliable source that backs the general pronunciation rules regarding foreign names that English speakers may even have no idea how to pronounce and make a note that it is just the general language guidance of how to pronounce. This would be more helpful to the project than requiring a reliable source for each specific person's name and how the person pronounce it, instead of the name in general. Although of course if there are such sources, they could be preferred.

Examples being List of Indian monarchs, List of heads of state of Mexico, Mayor of Paris#List of officeholders. Thinker78 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

wp:lede deletions

Hello. An editor has repeatedly deleted from a lede the description of what is indeed the subject of most of the article. And is the most notable aspect of the subject's bio. (After failing - in discussion with other editors - to have the article changed to be simply a redirect). Curiously, the editor is citing mos:lede as a rationale. Can someone please join the discussion here? Thanks. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:95FD:29F8:EB8A:7855 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a link to the revision. Please provide a link to the relevant discussion. If you haven't already done so, please provide the rationale for placing the text in the lead rather than in a subsequent section, -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC on Day of the Year lead lengths

Please see an open RfC on DOY article lead lengths here: Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates § RfC on the leads of DOY articles and their FL eligibility voorts (talk/contributions) 23:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

LEADLANG clarification

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

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

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

Here is an example of a lead that is well done and conforms with the guidance. There is a "single foreign language" plus the English language, with a semicolon between the two "separate languages".

Geneva (/dʒəˈniːvə/ jə-NEE-və; French: Genève [ʒənɛv] ) is the second-most populous city in Switzerland (after Zürich) and the most populous of the French-speaking Romandy.\

Does that help answer your first question? CUA 27 (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This confirms what I always understood it to mean, i.e., keep the single foreign language equivalent that is closely associated with the subject in the lead sentence and move the others to a footnote; however, I'm not convinced that everyone will interpret it the same way (given the cited Genghis Khan example). Clarifying this, maybe with the Geneva example, would remove any possible misinterpretation of the recommendations. M.Bitton (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Schierbecker, HansVonStuttgart, SMcCandlish, Anachronist, Thinker78, Moxy, Loytra, and MicrobiologyMarcus: your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)