1001:, "should be written in a clear, accessible style", standing "on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". WP:LEDE states that "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", which I believe basically means that, if an assertion in the intro requires an inline citation there, then it shouldn't be there. Either the assertion should be dropped from the lead, or the assertion should be stated with inline citation somewhere in the body of the article and only summarized in the lead, without citation. Likewise, I honestly believe there should be no inline citations at all in the actual summary, because Knowledge's article on the Spanish Civil War must surely include adequately support for the big takeaways relevant for the WWII article's summary (and in fact the SCW article includes 473 inline citations to something like 100 sources). And IMHO it would probably be inappropriate in the WWII article to be making any unusual, likely-to-be-doubted assertion about the SCW that would in fact require a citation.
206:
174:
984:
by the inline citations (only some specialist would want to see them, and the material for them is in the subarticle instead); and it appears to be just a selection of several facts from several of the article's sources, rather than a proper synthesis of what's known on the topic. (And as if none of the article's sources is a history book general enough to cover these several statements!) It would surely be better to cite one or a few general treatments of the SCW in one cluster at the end of the actual summary, which I think would suggest that each of them more or less supports all of the statements.
244:
185:
1005:
the subarticle's lead as the content in the summary section"). And by my reading, WP:LEDE suggests that a lead should usually not include citations. And no examples that I see in WP:SUMMARY include citations. BUT, there is no explicit statement that a summary need not include citations, and there are no examples given making this point (i.e. no pointer to any
Featured or other real article with good summaries not encumbered by citations).
498:
parent article and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. (...) It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic article before summarizing it in the parent article.
143:
278:
192:
519:
encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in the parent article. It also contains a link back to the parent article, and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles.
1033:
table row, say, that no one is checking whether everything in each table row is exactly supported by the one source appearing. Rather, I think that an editor has dutifully pasted in one corresponding source for each, to fend off dogmatic others who insist upon it. And it would be more honest to show no source, thereby implying all of the subarticles' sources.
1029:
exceptions, every
Knowledge article must be able to stand alone. Which means that all passages (although perhaps not the lead), including summary sections, must be supported by references to reliable sources. I further think that is a view widely held among editors, and it is perhaps why the editors at WWII have made it into a poorly written article, IMHO.
1113:
184:
696:
191:
991:, rather than selecting (and somewhat promoting) just a few, suggesting that the text is supported by the full weight of SCW's many many sources. And to suggest that Knowledge as author has properly summarized/synthesized what's relevant, without being artificially restricted by exactly what's covered in a certain few.
1032:
And it has been a problem for me previously and again now, that I can't find explicit statement that a list-article in which items are summaries of linked articles, does not need to have a hedgehog of citations. In practice, I think that in list-articles where one source has been inserted for each
1004:
Is the current WP:SUMMARY adequate in conveying that a summary can really be a summary, rather than a selection of a few assertions? I think not. By my reading, WP:SUMMARY does suggest that an article summary might simply be a transclusion of the lead of a sub-article ("it can be convenient to use
983:
Here, each sentence is followed by an inline citation, it feels like. Or at least it is apparent that each sentence is supported by the next one coming of the passage's multiple (three) inline citations. Frankly, I do not like this "actual text": it seems choppy, as a general reader I am irritated
827:
I'm having a discussion with other editors about, basically: does a blurb in a table row in a list-article, which summarizes a linked article, have to include one, some, or all of the inline references in the linked article? I have turned to wp:SUMMARY, seeking a flat statement giving guidance and
398:
getting too long. It appears the recommended action is to take most of the details out and put them in smaller articles covering shorter time periods. Each smaller article would have to refer back to the parent article, which would seem to be a use for the main template. At the same time, the brief
497:
A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article. It also contains a link back to the
1042:
2) stating that even if one or a few citations representative of the sources in the subarticle are included, that the summary need not be limited to only what is treated in those few (i.e., editors revising a summary do not need to be unduly concerned about repeatedly returning to a hypothetical
518:
Longer articles are split into sections, each usually several good-sized paragraphs long. Subsectioning can increase this amount. Ideally, many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections. Each subtopic article is a complete
529:
Sometimes editors will add details to a summary section without adding those facts to the more detailed article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary
1028:
I personally read that to mean that it is okay for a summary to include no citations (as long as it does not include a quotation or a likely-to-be-challenged assertion). However, I think that the overwhelming suggestion for many readers, though, will be the following, instead: that, with scant
887:. Italy supported the Nationalists to a greater extent than the Nazis did: altogether Mussolini sent to Spain more than 70,000 ground troops and 6,000 aviation personnel, as well as about 720 aircraft. The Soviet Union supported the existing government of the
344:
and I think something should be added to this page about that. But before proposing any specific phrase, what should be the position on this issue? How close should the section name be to the name of the main article?
432:
section, making it confusing and open to misinterpretation. I'd like to modify it to continue the parent/child article pattern of the rest of the guideline, as follows (bold for additions, strikethrough for removal):
766:
In my opinion, the choice of when to choose 'Main' vs. 'Further' links in the top-of-section link depends on the "relatedness" of the child article topic to the parent topic. More specifically, if there is a
899:
as an opportunity to test in combat their most advanced weapons and tactics. The
Nationalists won the civil war in April 1939; Franco, now dictator, remained officially neutral during World WarII but
364:
Take the case when I want to summarise an article A in my article B. A is very well sourced but I do not have access to its sources; do I have to right to summarise it and/or use its inline cites?
994:
In contrast, the "instructive example text" is easy to read so far, and I am on board believing that the
Spanish Civil War article will be nicely summarized for its purpose in the WWII article.
1132:
840:), rather than "restate separate assertions from within". And it does not clearly show that sometimes/often no citations at all are needed, which is what I would prefer to see.
297:
50:
321:
508:
The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article.
530:
section. If the detailed article changes considerably without updating the parent article, the summary section will need to be rewritten to do it justice.
651:
I agree. I don't think shortcuts that differ only by capitalization should ever have different targets. My suggestion would be to have both names target
85:
480:
Below, I've collapsed the relevant "story" from the lead to the sync section, to show the language used up to that point, then how it changes in SYNC.
1012:
Each article on
Knowledge must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit (exceptions noted herein). For example, every article must follow the
805:
399:
summaries of each group of years would seem to need a link to the longer detailed information, which seems also to be a use for the main template. —
1143:
1039:
1) adding an explicit statement that a summary in an article does not necessarily require any of the inline citations of the linked sub-article,
880:
325:
1043:
single editor who holds copies of all the sources in the subarticle, to get approval of statements that are well-established in the subarticle),
113:
109:
971:
952:
933:
395:
179:
91:
320:
When a section is written in summary style, should it's name closely reflect the title of the article? This was the subject of a dispute (
205:
173:
1123:
1105:
660:
1017:
412:
291:
286:
332:, and whether the section title should be the operation name or a descriptive term such as "Closure and evacuation". There isn't
31:
1057:
843:
The first example gives, for the summary of
Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), under Pre-war events, with "main"-type link to
676:
80:
908:
672:
664:
268:
253:
154:
742:
I can't figure out what discussion this is pointing too. However, I have put back the 40 kB, which is in line with the
667:?) linked to from this page via hatnote. It looks like there is some precedent for such Knowledge namespace dabs, e.g.
1140:
817:
71:
997:
I really believe the summary in the WWII article should be like the lead of the
Spanish Civil War article, which, by
448:
article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the
369:
104:
900:
832:
article uses summary style, maybe doesn't work as it should, in that it doesn't convey that it is really okay to
257:
218:
213:
1081:
when a section is a summary? If the link to the main article can be incorporated into the text itself, as I did
122:
1068:
1021:
261:
17:
1013:
888:
751:
652:
640:
35:
301:
of
Knowledge's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
1137:
892:
743:
377:
329:
570:
406:
221:(MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.
160:
1046:
3) that pointers to good examples of such summaries in mainspace
Knowledge articles be provided, and
1090:
61:
1127:
813:
747:
631:
587:
545:
127:
76:
217:, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the
256:
procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the
English Knowledge
1053:
1049:
4) that someone (not me) be deputized to go improve use of summary style in the WWII article!
844:
837:
795:
725:
In agreement with earlier discussion , I changed the obsolete 40 kB recommendation to 100 kB.
708:
684:
656:
627:
623:
616:
612:
608:
373:
350:
57:
884:
856:
785:
565:
400:
243:
124:
1086:
998:
1101:
1075:
904:
879:
When civil war broke out in Spain, Hitler and Mussolini lent military support to the
852:
809:
775:
732:
582:
558:
540:
365:
341:
895:, also fought against the Nationalists. Both Germany and the Soviet Union used this
1146:
1094:
1061:
829:
755:
736:
712:
704:
688:
680:
668:
645:
626:? Should we redirect it to here? Also, should we delete the disambiguation page at
594:
576:
552:
418:
381:
354:
346:
298:
guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Knowledge policies
126:
277:
469:
article changes considerably without updating the parent article, the summary
337:
867:. That reads great to me, and shows no citation, as far as it goes. But the
1024:. This applies whether in a parent article or in a summary-style subarticle.
896:
768:
727:
1112:
808:
that relates to this question, and your feedback would be appreciated.
336:
guidance for the section name of a summary-style section on this page,
1133:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 1 § Summary style
1016:, which requires that all quotations and any material challenged or
285:
For information on Knowledge's approach to the establishment of new
1130:. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
1085:, that seems more elegant to me, but apparently it's not allowed?
1020:
be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an
828:
some great examples. However, the leading example, on how the
391:
I have an unusual situation and can't figure out where to ask.
136:
128:
26:
903:. His greatest collaboration with Germany was the sending of
428:
The terminology used throughout the guideline changes in the
455:
article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the
276:
242:
368:
comes to mind but I doubt it applies here, and I remember
619:. And the disambiguation page has like 12 things on it.
1118:
1082:
872:
781:, and if it's a more diffuse relationship it should be
1008:
About citations, this wp:SUMMARY states the following:
823:
clarify on WWII example, are citations needed or not?
746:
guideline and matches common use within GAN and FAC.
1126:
to determine whether its use and function meets the
891:. More than 30,000 foreign volunteers, known as the
703:
in the absence of any objections after a few weeks.
603:
WP:SUMMARY vs wp:summary... also disambiguation page
328:
about its evacuation, for which the main article is
762:When to choose 'Main' and when to choose 'Further'
615:(lowercase) redirects to a disambiguation page at
989:it would be better still to include no citations
761:
444:without adding those facts to the more detailed
372:. Shouldn't this be mentioned in this page too?
527:
516:
506:
495:
435:
338:MOS:LAYOUT#Section templates and summary style
324:) over a summary-style section in the article
18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (summary style)
8:
271:carefully and exercise caution when editing.
476:will need to be rewritten to do it justice.
360:What to do with citations while summarising
483:
474:of the child article in the parent article
168:
932:sfn error: no target: CITEREFNeulen2000 (
153:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
970:sfn error: no target: CITEREFPayne2008 (
951:sfn error: no target: CITEREFPayne2008 (
437:Sometimes editors will add details to a
211:This page falls within the scope of the
920:
486:
326:Embassy of the United States, Mogadishu
170:
927:
851:Germany and Italy lent support to the
488:Lengthy quotes from the guideline page
424:Suggestion for Synchronization section
396:World oil market chronology from 2003
965:
946:
267:Contributors are urged to review the
227:Knowledge:WikiProject Manual of Style
7:
264:. Both areas are subjects of debate.
230:Template:WikiProject Manual of Style
142:
140:
159:It is of interest to the following
34:for discussing improvements to the
804:There is an ongoing discussion at
25:
1111:
694:
204:
190:
183:
172:
141:
51:Click here to start a new topic.
1136:until a consensus is reached.
818:02:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
581:I'm going to make the change.
1:
677:Knowledge:DR (disambiguation)
595:00:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
577:03:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
561:, Support, provides clarity.
553:00:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
48:Put new text under old text.
756:05:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
673:Knowledge:Dispute resolution
1147:00:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
1095:13:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
1062:21:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
901:generally favoured the Axis
875:article is quite different:
665:WP:SUMMARY (disambiguation)
661:WP:Summary (disambiguation)
646:05:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
419:17:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
56:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1162:
607:Ok, so this is confusing.
382:17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
355:21:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
252:This page falls under the
771:connection, it should be
737:15:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
713:01:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
675:, which has a hatnote to
539:Thoughts? Disagreements?
394:I asked what to do about
284:
250:
214:Knowledge:Manual of Style
199:
167:
86:Be welcoming to newcomers
1124:redirects for discussion
1106:Redirects for discussion
865:instructive example text
853:Nationalist insurrection
806:Talk:Transgender history
689:15:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
655:and move the content at
611:redirects to this page.
233:Manual of Style articles
1036:THEREFORE, I suggest:
1018:likely to be challenged
653:Knowledge:Summary style
622:What should we do with
287:policies and guidelines
1026:
913:
893:International Brigades
861:
744:Knowledge:Article size
630:? Should we do both? –
532:
521:
510:
500:
478:
330:Operation Eastern Exit
281:
247:
81:avoid personal attacks
1010:
877:
849:
847:, the following text:
316:Summary section names
280:
262:article titles policy
246:
1014:verifiability policy
1128:redirect guidelines
1122:has been listed at
1067:Question regarding
370:WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT
881:Nationalist rebels
573:
569:
282:
269:awareness criteria
254:contentious topics
248:
155:content assessment
92:dispute resolution
53:
1069:WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE
883:, led by General
845:Spanish Civil War
838:Executive summary
644:
628:Knowledge:Summary
617:Knowledge:Summary
571:
563:
536:
535:
387:How do I do this?
313:
312:
309:
308:
305:
304:
135:
134:
72:Assume good faith
49:
16:(Redirected from
1153:
1121:
1115:
976:
975:
963:
957:
956:
944:
938:
937:
925:
907:to fight on the
889:Spanish Republic
885:Francisco Franco
857:Francisco Franco
800:
794:
790:
784:
780:
774:
702:
698:
697:
638:
636:
592:
585:
575:
550:
543:
503:Levels of detail
484:
415:
409:
403:
295:. Additionally,
235:
234:
231:
228:
225:
208:
201:
200:
195:
194:
193:
188:
187:
186:
176:
169:
146:
145:
144:
137:
129:
27:
21:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1117:
1109:
1072:
1022:inline citation
981:
980:
979:
969:
964:
960:
950:
945:
941:
931:
926:
922:
855:led by general
825:
798:
792:
788:
782:
778:
772:
764:
723:
695:
693:
632:
605:
588:
583:
562:
546:
541:
537:
524:Synchronization
489:
457:summary section
439:summary section
430:Synchronization
426:
413:
407:
401:
389:
362:
318:
258:Manual of Style
232:
229:
226:
224:Manual of Style
223:
222:
219:Manual of Style
189:
182:
180:Manual of Style
131:
130:
125:
98:
97:
67:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1159:
1157:
1108:
1098:
1071:
1065:
978:
977:
958:
939:
919:
918:
914:
863:Call that the
836:(perhaps a la
824:
821:
763:
760:
759:
758:
722:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
604:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
534:
533:
491:
490:
487:
482:
460:parent article
442:parent article
425:
422:
388:
385:
361:
358:
317:
314:
311:
310:
307:
306:
303:
302:
283:
273:
272:
266:
249:
239:
238:
236:
209:
197:
196:
177:
165:
164:
158:
147:
133:
132:
123:
121:
120:
117:
116:
100:
99:
96:
95:
88:
83:
74:
68:
66:
65:
54:
45:
44:
41:
40:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1158:
1149:
1148:
1145:
1142:
1139:
1135:
1134:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1119:Summary style
1116:The redirect
1114:
1107:
1103:
1102:Summary style
1099:
1097:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1076:Template:Main
1070:
1066:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1050:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1037:
1034:
1030:
1025:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1009:
1006:
1002:
1000:
995:
992:
990:
985:
973:
967:
962:
959:
954:
948:
943:
940:
935:
929:
924:
921:
917:
912:
910:
909:Eastern Front
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
876:
874:
870:
866:
860:
859:in Spain ....
858:
854:
848:
846:
841:
839:
835:
831:
822:
820:
819:
815:
811:
807:
802:
797:
787:
777:
770:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
740:
739:
738:
734:
730:
729:
720:
714:
710:
706:
701:
692:
691:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
671:redirects to
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
648:
647:
642:
637:
635:
634:Novem Linguae
629:
625:
620:
618:
614:
610:
602:
596:
593:
591:
586:
580:
579:
578:
574:
567:
560:
557:
556:
555:
554:
551:
549:
544:
531:
525:
520:
514:
509:
504:
499:
493:
492:
485:
481:
477:
475:
472:
468:
465:
461:
458:
454:
451:
447:
443:
440:
434:
431:
423:
421:
420:
416:
414:contributions
410:
404:
397:
392:
386:
384:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
359:
357:
356:
352:
348:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
315:
300:
299:
294:
293:
288:
279:
275:
274:
270:
265:
263:
259:
255:
245:
241:
240:
237:
220:
216:
215:
210:
207:
203:
202:
198:
181:
178:
175:
171:
166:
162:
156:
152:
148:
139:
138:
119:
118:
115:
111:
108:
106:
102:
101:
93:
89:
87:
84:
82:
78:
75:
73:
70:
69:
63:
59:
58:Learn to edit
55:
52:
47:
46:
43:
42:
37:
36:Summary style
33:
29:
28:
19:
1131:
1110:
1104:" listed at
1078:
1073:
1051:
1048:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1011:
1007:
1003:
996:
993:
988:
986:
982:
961:
942:
923:
915:
878:
873:World War II
868:
864:
862:
850:
842:
833:
830:World War II
826:
803:
765:
726:
724:
699:
633:
621:
606:
589:
547:
538:
528:
523:
517:
512:
507:
502:
496:
494:(from lead)
479:
473:
470:
466:
463:
459:
456:
452:
449:
445:
441:
438:
436:
429:
427:
393:
390:
374:Ugog Nizdast
363:
333:
319:
296:
290:
251:
212:
161:WikiProjects
151:project page
150:
103:
30:This is the
1052:--Doncram (
928:Neulen 2000
871:in current
869:actual text
402:Vchimpanzee
292:WP:PROPOSAL
289:, refer to
1087:Un assiolo
966:Payne 2008
947:Payne 2008
916:References
905:volunteers
657:WP:Summary
624:wp:summary
613:wp:summary
609:WP:SUMMARY
260:, and the
968:, p. 146.
949:, p. 271.
897:proxy war
834:summarize
769:meronymic
513:Technique
462:. If the
94:if needed
77:Be polite
32:talk page
1141:1234qwer
1138:1234qwer
1079:required
1058:contribs
930:, p. 25.
810:Mathglot
796:See also
584:Schazjmd
559:Schazjmd
542:Schazjmd
464:detailed
450:detailed
334:explicit
105:Archives
62:get help
999:WP:LEDE
786:Further
705:Colin M
681:Colin M
566:Timothy
471:section
347:AHeneen
590:(talk)
548:(talk)
522:(from
511:(from
501:(from
366:WP:CWW
342:WP:HAT
157:scale.
987:And,
733:talk
669:WP:DR
467:child
453:child
446:child
340:, or
149:This
90:Seek
38:page.
1091:talk
1083:here
1054:talk
972:help
953:help
934:help
814:talk
791:(or
776:Main
752:talk
721:size
709:talk
700:Done
685:talk
663:(or
641:talk
572:talk
408:talk
378:talk
351:talk
322:here
79:and
1074:Is
801:).
748:CMD
728:DGG
659:to
568:::
564://
417:•
1093:)
1060:)
816:)
799:}}
793:{{
789:}}
783:{{
779:}}
773:{{
754:)
735:)
711:)
687:)
679:.
526:)
515:)
505:)
411:•
405:•
380:)
353:)
112:,
60:;
1144:4
1100:"
1089:(
1056:,
974:)
955:)
936:)
911:.
812:(
750:(
731:(
707:(
683:(
643:)
639:(
376:(
349:(
163::
114:2
110:1
107::
64:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
