Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

That's about it. Some recent changes to Bath School disaster has me wondering if any one MOS concerning the lead section takes precedence over any other. Thanks - Shearonink (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Ideally, the sections are interpreted together in a coherent way, without any taking precedence over the other. Per MOS:LEADTITLE, the title should be the subject of the first sentence if it is a commonly accepted name for the subject. If it is a descriptive name, it should still be the subject of the lead sentence if this can be done in a natural way. MOS:REDUNDANCY gives examples of descriptive titles that can't be accommodated in a natural way due to redundancy. The distinction between common names and descriptive titles is also discussed at WP:NPOVTITLE: …whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors.

Taking the guideline as a whole, I think the relevant questions for Bath School disaster are whether the title is a commonly accepted name name or descriptive title, and if it is descriptive, whether it can serve as the subject of the lead sentence without excessive redundancy.--Trystan (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

By all means, put the name back into the lead sentences in bold where it belongs. A three-word phrase such as this can very easily be used as subject in bold as it usual and recommended for all titles except for purely descriptive and lengthy ones (which this one clearly isn't). Just consider: it it really impossible to use the phrase Bath School disaster "easily and naturally in the first sentence"? If it's possible, then AVOIDBOLD doesn't apply in the first place. Gawaon (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

We are defining the Bath School disaster as an incident that took place in Bath School. This still contravenes MOS:LEAD, namely WP:REDUNDANCY: Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. It is not how we would word this sentence if we did not prioritize boldface, and this begs the question: why do we do that? Surtsicna (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

We didn't make up that name, it was already widely used outside of Wikipedia. We document things as they are, as we should. Forget about use or non-use of boldface, that's indeed rather irrelevant here. Even if we didn't use any boldface at all, it would still make sense to start the article on a subject with the subject as subject of the lead sentence (the apparent redundancy here is non-accidental), so we'd likely still do it. Gawaon (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

It is one of multiple descriptive terms used in reliable sources. Looking at the cited sources alone reveals "names" such as Bath School Bombing and 1927 Michigan School Massacre. Having the article subject as the subject of the lead sentence does not necessarily help the reader, and in cases like this results in lead sentences that do not introduce the subject as well as they could.

On May 18, 1927, Andrew Kehoe carried out planned bombings at the Bath Consolidated School in Bath Township, Michigan, killing 45 people.

Surtsicna (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

However, whether helpful or not — I think it is, you apparently don't — it is our recommended policy to use the established name(s) as subject unless there are good reasons not to (which don't exist here). So we can only agree to disagree and call it a day. Gawaon (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

No, it is not our policy. What we have here is a guideline, and this is not the established name, as already noted. It is one of several descriptive names used in sources, including Bath massacre and Bath School bombing. if the article title is merely descriptive, it does not need to appear verbatim in the first sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The current wording ("The Bath School disaster was a series of violent attacks") is ideal. GiantSnowman 19:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Your vote is duly noted. Surtsicna (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

As is your sarcasm and incivility. Grow up. GiantSnowman 07:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Your input will be given more consideration when it is accompanied by argumentation. Your personal remarks will be discussed in (yet another) ANI report, to which you have been contributing material for months. Surtsicna (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

And I have no doubt that your threats and attempts to stifle discussion will result in WP:BOOMERANG. GiantSnowman 13:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

There was a bit of a disagreement at Seattle Kraken about whether the lead should say "Seattle", or "Seattle, Washington, United States", or even "Seattle, in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States". MOS:LOCATION wants "Seattle, Washington, United States", but also says it only applies to "articles on buildings, venues, monuments, and other physical structures", so it's unclear if it applies to articles about sports teams. The argument has already sunk WP:Featured article candidates/Seattle Kraken/archive3 and is getting close to WP:3RR territory. The debate has now spilled over onto WP:HOCKEY#Team location, in the lead, so perhaps words of wisdom could be applied there? RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure it's meant to apply, even though the Kraken are not a physical structure – but they are tied to one, the Climate Pledge Arena. Logically, MOS:LOCATION does of course apply to both equally, and for the same reason – not every reader may be sure where Seattle is, and we so try to be helpful. Gawaon (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I've BOLDly added "If a city or similar geographic entity is mentioned in the lead of other articles, the same format should be used" to MOS:LOCATION to clarify this. Gawaon (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Given that there are 7.8 billion people outside of the United States, we ought to make sure content is as accessible and straightforward as possible. Readers may be confused as to why the Seattle Kraken article omits the state but the Anaheim Ducks or Columbus Blue Jackets do not; pointing them towards MOS:USPLACE is not really a good option. Looking at soccer articles, the Premier League clubs in London all have their location given as [BOROUGH (linked)], [REGION or London (sometimes linked)], England (not linked), which is entirely understandable and does not create a devastating amount of extra work for editors. A small degree of consistency is needed here and the fighting over including a simple state name has been repeated several times across various sports WikiProjects, so I would support a formal addition to the MOS. SounderBruce 06:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

For an alternative to "city"? I'm content with either "city, province/state, country" or "city, country" or "city, province/state". GoodDay (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The lede section is supposed to be like the "executive summary" of a paper and it should summarize the whole article. What I am seeing often though is stuffing all of C suites' names into infobox, a long list of business associates or clients in lede, especially for articles about creative companies and people. (insert name here) is known for (long list of name drops). See Piki Films for example and this one isn't even bad.

I suspect this is search optimization motivated editing activity in order to produce desired machine feed for AI and Google summary. Some of them call this practice "front loading". I think we need to specifically discourage tailoring lead and infobox for the purpose of being search optimization. This trend is especially obvious in articles in which public relations editing have taken place. Graywalls (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I would go a step further and say we should not be summarizing "the whole article," just the main points. This happens with company pages where editors will stuff ALL of its products and services and ALL of its clients and ALL of its location service areas instead of just summarizing. Or, a likely competitor or upset customer will stuff ALL litigation and ALL complaints about a company into the lead. I realize that WP:READERSFIRST is an essay but it should be kept in mind with lead sections.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't take long to find them either. See Procter & Gamble. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It really should not have product or people list in the lede. Graywalls (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

For something like P&G, I would state they "sell a variety of consumer household, hygiene, and personal care products." You are right, there is no need to list these products out individually. If readers want to know the specific products, there is a list on the page they can scroll to. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

A lot of lede and infobox these days, especially articles in which public relations firm are involved in are not optimized for humans but to seed how AI platforms describe them as well as search result optimization. Graywalls (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Stuff like - "The company owns brands that are in many cases the global brand leader in their category.[2] Many of the brands have a market share greater than 25%.[2]" - is also unnecessary for the lead. Maybe for the brand section but not the lead. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

There is an RfC about Indigenous translations in the lead sentence at Wikipedia:CANTALK#RfC: Inclusion of significant Indigenous names in lead sentences (WP:CANSTYLE). Your input is welcome. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)