WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia: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 articles
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are known to be subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

An example[edit]

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)[reply]

Wow, that is so unreadable. Good example of when a footnote would be a better choice. Schazjmd (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It was fixed weeks ago. Gawaon (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Pronunciation[edit]

@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)[reply]

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 or Pippo Barzizza, on the other hand, would be a mistake and should be reverted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wait, are you saying that they're removing the pronunciations in English 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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."

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.

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

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!

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

I'm adding just a couple of considerations.

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

wp:lede deletions[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RfC on Day of the Year lead lengths[edit]

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)[reply]

LEADLANG clarification[edit]

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)[reply]

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;[1] French: Genève [ʒənɛv] ⓘ)[note 1] is the second-most populous city in Switzerland (after Zürich) and the most populous of the French-speaking Romandy.

References

  1. ^ "Geneva". Lexico UK English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22.
Does that help answer your first question? CUA 27 (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think the wording could be more clear, but also feel it would be unnecessary to have it be a firmer wording as such. Depending on context, There are other factors, mainly the length of alternative names, where one could squeeze in two names and have it be an equally elegant solution (footnotes aren't zero-cost in a layout, even if they're usually near-zero).
Tell me if I'm wrong, but Chinese is nearly the worst-case scenario for this: both script and romanization are always necessary, it is often preferred to include both simplified and traditional forms, there are often multiple relevant romanizations... all for text that a supermajority of our audience cannot read and will likely find a teensy net negative for their reading experience, much as I love looking at Chinese characters all day. Remsense诉 05:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pinging those who edited the article recently.@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)[reply]

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

MOS:LEADPRON suggested revisions[edit]

MOS:LEADPRON suggested revision #1

I propose we change this:

"Do not include pronunciations for names of foreign countries whose pronunciations are well known in English (France, Poland)."

to this:

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

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

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

Hmm, I'm a bit sceptical – currently the French pronunciation of Paris is given in an explanatory note, which is absolutely fine. We shouldn't give the impression that mentioning it is forbidden altogether. Gawaon (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I’ve revised by adding “in the text of the lead sentence” to address your point. Pronunciation guides are fine, but not when they unnecessarily clutter the lead sentence. CUA 27 (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADPRON suggested revision #2

I propose adding the green text:

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

With these changes, the following unreadable first sentence:

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

becomes much more readable, with no information lost:

São Tomé and Príncipe[a] (English: "Saint Thomas and Prince") ... is an island country in the Gulf of Guinea, off the western equatorial coast of Central Africa.

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

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

Notes[edit]

Hey, does MOS:LEADCITE apply to notes which are linked to the lead only, example Horizon Forbidden West. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I got your question right, but LEADCITE only states that facts that are referenced in the article body can appear in the lead without needing to repeat the reference there. If something appears only in the lead, then it must be referenced just as if it appeared anywhere else. Gawaon (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, my question is about information that's included in a efn note and the note is only used in the lead, can the note be covered by LEADCITE or should be it be cited? See the note at the top of the infobox at Horizon Forbidden West and recent edit history. Indagate (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article text has a citation for a version of the claim at the bottom of the "Release" section: Nixxes Software then ported the Complete Edition to Windows on 21 March 2024.[1] That claim may need to be qualified, but that does not mean that a citation is needed in the infobox.

References

  1. ^ Lyles, Taylor (21 March 2024). "Horizon Forbidden West Complete Edition PC Requirements Revealed". IGN. Archived from the original on 20 March 2024. Retrieved 6 April 2024.

Donald Albury 20:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LEADCITE and responding to challenges over material in the lead[edit]

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

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

EDITED Lead Page[edit]

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I have revised the lead page by summarizing key points and mentioning important aspects and sections of the article itself. I noticed in this article how there was a short lead in the section, and missing depth in the information; as I have also read the conversations above. Emooshka11 (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just vandalized the page by replacing part of it with sociology content. I reverted your change. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, but I don't understand. The article stated the lead page needed revision as there was a short summary. How do I edit without vandalizing? I do not see what I have done wrong here, as I am simply confused. Emooshka11 (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emooshka11, you edited the Manual of Style page to write about sociology. Look at your edit and compare it to the current page. Does that help you understand that you edited the wrong page? Schazjmd (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

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

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

BTW, I have written an essay about "lead": How to create and manage a good lead section (a how-to guide). An article's lead is a sensitive matter. Generally, no significant changes should be made to the lead unless there is a genuine need for it. That can occur when the body of the article has been enlarged or significantly changed. Changing a lead often requires quite a bit of knowledge about the whole article. Therefore, it's better to work on the body, rather than change the lead, at least while you are a newbie. Of course, minor copy edits to improve the grammar, spelling, and punctuation in the lead are always welcome. That doesn't change the lead's summary of the whole article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=note)) template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or ((efn)) templates on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=lower-alpha)) template or ((notelist)) template (see the help page).

More