Knowledge talk:How to create and manage a good lead section

2379:, I can assure you there is no intent to be misleading, per your edit summary. That was just a leftover of my older terminology in the essay. Right now we've started to call them internal lead "section links". They are more discrete than normal numbered references and connect specific content in the lead with the exact content and references in the body from which the lead content is derived. An additional function was discovered and implemented along the way, and that is to use them to largely eliminate blue wikilinks from the lead as they take readers away from the article. That's unfortunate. This system highlights the hierarchy of importance, in that the lead is totally subservient to the body and its references. Readers should be directed there before seeking information elsewhere. The result, by contrast to many leads, is a visually clean lead that is super functional by highlighting/pointing to the body and its references. Like all things new, it takes a bit to get used to the idea, but, once one understands, the advantages become obvious and the discrete symbols fade away into the background. I don't even notice them. If we can get used to numbered references, and we do, then we can get used to these as they are much more discrete. -- 971:. One of the arguments at the time was that "readers would probably expect to be taken to another article entirely." How do we know that? Has there been a poll, not to mention a reliable poll, of readers’ expectations? I don’t remember what I expected — other than more info — when clicking on an inline link before I started editing on WP. (Also, quite a few of the articles on Trump have a quality problem.) Another argument was not wanting "people confused if sometimes they click a link and it goes to another article, and other times they click a link and just jump around in the same article." Are WP readers unfamiliar with the revert arrow in their browsers? 942:

use synonyms right there.) Whenever RS appear with new information of relevance, that content is updated. (In spite of that, there are fringe editors who still insist on applying some synonym of "unproven" or "disproven" to the whole dossier and to all allegations, which is false and contrary to the treatment in RS, because a number of allegations are confirmed true.) This subject of "self-links within prose" is a tangentially related topic to this thread, so, to not create a distraction, I'll end my reply here. If we need to continue, maybe we should move this to a new thread. --

978:) And we shouldn’t presume that WP readers are easily confused or unfamiliar with the revert arrow of their browsers, i.e., less competent than us genius editors. In a lead and an article of this size, I think the lead should be a summary of article content without citations or inline links to other articles - want more info, look at the table of contents and/or click on the inline link to read the section in the body with the citations and the links to other articles (yeah, when pigs fly). The lead, not just in this article, seems to be turning into an article in its own right. 1486:, I'm referring to the clickable "§" that replace citations/references in the lead, as I do at the lead for this essay. They take one to sections, which is why I call them "lead section references" or "leadrefs". Using them to replace blue wikilinks is something else, but maybe both ideas will work. This all started because of objections to all the citations/refs in leads. We want to avoid them as much as possible. Doing this to replace blue wikilinks in the lead is a totally new and different idea that has been piggybacked onto my idea, which is fine. -- 22: 81: 53: 994:

out by clicking on one of the symbols, and in my experience they rarely take the time to read explanations at the top anyway. With any luck, the usage would eventually become widespread enough that readers could transfer that knowledge to other articles, particularly the more contentious ones. We might add something about it to the FAQ on this page, but even that would have questionable value.

145: 67: 1553:, except for the last sentence — I didn't dare mess with consensus item 58:) Being able to eliminate the blue wikilinks is the pleasant side effect Mandruss mentioned. Two birds with one stone, and IMO the side effect is actually the bigger selling point. What would also be good is a button after each section title to take the reader back to the lead. 2450:– those lead references are extremely distracting. They are useless on mobile. I want to click on the ref and see it float or overlay then disappear so I can continue reading the lead. All those things on the Trump article should be reverted right away. That is one of Knowledge's most trafficked articles. Do not experiment on a million view article. -- 690:

Furthermore, your technique would require named references in the body. As it is, we'll have some cases summarizing body content from multiple sections, requiring multiple leadrefs in the lead; let's not make that worse by requiring a separate template for each citation. I suggest a template that does what I described above with the coding examples.

1761:

heading. That means the heading should always have a blank line above and below it. That makes it much easier to find section headings when quickly scanning pages while editing. If there is only one blank line, it looks like any other blank line between paragraphs and one can whizz right on past it without noticing the heading. --

3222:: I like the idea of inline citations in the lead pointing to the relevant text in the body. It is something that I have thought about myself as necessary at times. Because frequently there is info in the lead that is not found in the body of the article. And also when it should not be even lead material by its own. 1335:

this. If one wanted to kill this on the vine, the most effective way would be to go ask for prior community permission. You'll get more community support if the community can see the concept working in actual practice, rather than discussing things in the abstract.I don't even know why this needed to

993:

That's a good reason to avoid a link that looks anything like a link to another article. A lone superscripted symbol () would have only one use, to link from the lead to a section heading in the same article. I don't think an "explanation at the top" is necessary. I think most readers would figure it

636:

I'm not sure what you mean by "testable". There's no question it would work from a technical standpoint, as we know section links work and we see this working in the essay. The only "experts" you need are for creating the template, and that could wait a little while to see if the concept flies at all

323:

The lead section should contain up to four paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide a preview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise

2479:

Your phone doesn't have the "swipe right" function or a navigation bar with a back button or the new-fangled "gesture control"? The silcrows take the reader who wants to know more directly to the section in the page with the details and refs where you can click on the ref and see it float or overlay

1268:

Ok, groundbreakers. Is that how things should work, though? I'd think a new referencing system would start somewhere at the Village Pump rather than an article talk page that is only frequented by a handful of politics-oriented editors. There's also the "why" to consider, is this truly to inform the

1033:

other articles, but we can't do it completely. That makes so much sense. Using discrete leadref symbols would indeed help to eliminate many, but not all, blue links in the lead. There is a difference between a blue wikilink and "non-blue" lead content with a leadref symbol after it. We're aiming to

754:

Yes I agree we shouldn't use the templates from userspace, I was merely demonstrating how it works, and feel free to change it around. Yes someone with rights would have to create it in mainspace, and I agree you could simply do it by hand for now. I agree generally with your idea of how this could

549:

It's not an entirely bad idea, although it would increase the workload in an active article like this one. Section headings change, and editors rarely add the code to retain the old heading as an alternate target. There would always have to be people watching for broken "#'s" in the lead and fixing

2918:

The objections were of various types. Some were the typical and natural human resistance to change and characterized by constantly moving the goalposts with just the typical IDONTLIKEIT complaints we often hear. Other objections pointed to real problems and concerns. They will be studied and will

1680:

On my platform, Windows/Firefox, I can easily get "back to top" with one mouse movement, one keystroke, and one mouse click. It works for a scrollable page of any type, Knowledge or otherwise, so 90%+ of readers already know how to do it. I probably do it a hundred times a day. Is there a platform

941:

sections, making it easier for readers to learn what RS say about the status of each allegation, which is often a mixture of opposing opinions and interpretations (when RS disagree, we are supposed to document both sides), but sometimes a clear "confirmed", "unconfirmed", or "disproven" exists. (I

900:

Did you notice that the text "he was impeached" was superscripted? Not acceptable, obviously. And removing the superscripting would put a non-superscripted symbol in the middle of the prose, impeding readability. I don't know why people keep trying to deviate from the technique shown in the essay,

2581:

I assume GoodDay is claiming that, or they would have withdrawn the RfC (which is completely within their power; it's false to say "well now it's out of my hands and water under the bridge"). Guest2625 implies by their participation that they don't think it's a violation or don't care. The RfC is

2547:

It's about deeper issues than readability of the lead, but I'm not going down that road in an RfC that should be procedurally closed. I don't know how many "Bad RfC" !votes are required to make that happen, or who would do it, but so far nobody who has been involved from the beginning has claimed

1818:

Yes, no worries. I assume if everyone accepts this process, others who are more keyed in to the state of Knowledge templates and development will have ideas and come up with more authoritative solutions. FWIW, though, I was able to add the negative margins and it does work for a proof of concept,

1787:

that includes the button for the section, but then you'd need a way to enable it selectively. Probably the way we could hack it to work, so it doesn't show up in the TOC but just for the section header, would be to add it on the next line but then use css tricks to make it appear on the previous

736:

Your Simple_Leadref is the ticket, but we shouldn't use it in the article from user space. To get it into template space requires an editor with the template editor user right, and doing that before the concept is accepted in actual practice would be cart before horse (partly because of the extra

689:

For what we have in mind, see the essay that Valjean linked in his opening comment. We don't want something that looks like a citation number when it's not one. And the lead content will often summarize information from multiple sources cited in the body, often non-adjacent in the target section.

210:

I hope you enjoy this essay and find it interesting. I'd appreciate feedback here, but also on my talk page, since I have over 8,000 articles, plus their talk pages, on my watchlist. Comments on my talk page will be noticed. You can also get my attention anywhere by pinging me. Start your comment

1760:

If a "back to top" function is accepted, it should be part of the wiki default settings when creating a section heading, IOW made by Wikimedia programmers. Right now the wiki default for a section heading is with a blank line below the heading and a blank space on each side of the wording in the

2464:

My suggestion is to keep the old reference style and if editors want they can add a link in the reference which allows the reader to click to the relevant section. Just as the reader can decide if they want to click to the external website of the source. Do not force the reader to chop up their

1011:

I agree that leads should not link to other articles, and I and others have said so in the past. That tends to encourage readers to bypass the body content, raising the question of what it's for. Readers should be steered to our body first, and only then to other articles if they want even more

206:

It is time to launch this essay I started working on in January 2011. I hope that it will inspire editors to think about how they create and edit leads. A lead can make or break an article by inspiring or discouraging editors to/from reading further. This works both ways because thinking

2873:

demonstrated good functionality and multiple advantages while revealing areas for improvement before any final implementation. The reaction also revealed the natural tendency to resist change. When this is better developed, we'll seek more input from the community. Thanks again. --

2621:

All "Bad RFC" votes seem to be from the editors who support the change. There was a local consensus of 5 or so editors who implemented a major stylistic change. Now that is has been noticed by more, you can't claim that consensus of a handful of editors trumps the larger community.

1241:

An important concept to make this work best is my belief in a tight/mirrored connection between each part of the lead and each section in the body, IOW mirroring the ORDER each appears in the body. The lead should mirror the body, also in the order in which things are mentioned.

2661:

It's a major stylistic change at one of the most visible articles. Such a change needs solid consensus from the wider community, not just from a handful of editors closely involved at the page. Maybe this particular RFC isn't the right one, but clearly one is needed somewhere.

2108:

That's not how a consensus works. A consensus doesn't have a quorum. If 5 editors all agree to make a change on an article, it may be made on the article. Forcing the issue to be an RFC instead of providing feedback and constructively engaging? is an anti-wiki process action.

925:. Thanks for the heads up. Here's the opening of the closing decision: "There is a consensus that self-links within prose should be allowed and that linking should be based on editorial discretion." I agree with that decision. There is a sentence at the end of the lead in the 1711:

This isn’t about reinventing the wheel, it’s about putting a tire on it that will make the ride less bumpy. "§" is a "jump to" button, so why not add a "jump back to top" button, ideally on the right side of the section heading line. I don’t know how the equivalent of

2532:

The discussion initially was about citations in the lead and then evolved into a discussion about improving the readability of the lead by replacing the links to other WP pages with section links to the body where the user can find both greater detail and the RS.

559:.We have historically had trouble making sure that all lead content is backed up by body content. A solution like this might make that easier, as the absence of a leadref would be a flag that someone should check the body (then add a leadref, add body content 737:

effort required to delete a template). Just add a few without the template and see if it's accepted. If so, add the rest. Then wait a few weeks before having some authorized editor add the template in template space, and then convert everything to use it.

1401:"(Replacing Wikilinks with section references — see discussion at Talk)" That's an application of Mandruss's idea about fewer blue links, whereas my idea of leadrefs is to substute them for actual citation references. These are two different concepts. -- 776:. This superscript links to the reference superscript named bar, but it also works for unnamed references as well . The trick is figuring out how to automatically update the numbers for named refs. I guess you can also call it a refref vs a sectionref 1725:. They work but I had to add them to the heading, so they showed up in the TOC. Unforeseen consequence: when I click the button in the TOC, it links to the body section, so I deleted them. (I probably should have foreseen that, it being the TOC.) 2139:

An RFC is soliciting feedback: you could have provided your feedback. Then, after providing such feedback, you engage constructively. Your entire rationale was, you didn't like the way it looked, and you didn't like the people who did it.

1453:. My original idea here seems to work, but maybe another way might work better? The discussion has been good, so continue. It was just off-topic at the talk page, and others requested it be closed or moved, so that's what I've done. 870:). It adds the § and # symbol, respectively, and if you hover over the link you see the section it links to. Either one would require an explanation at the top (Click § to view article section, or s.th. similar). I'd be all for it. 3093:

Y'know, I had some initial reservations of just going ahead and doing it as well, but, the way you approached broached your opposition was kind of dickish, like this was some grand and egregious affront to the project. Be better.

1716:

would work for the dab and swipe folks when they're way down at the end of a long article - the closest I’ve come to a smartphone is a large tablet, and I avoid using it as much as I can. I added a couple of "back to top" buttons

597:

Thanks for understanding my intent and for the constructive suggestions. Is there a project where experts might make a serious attempt to develop and improve a testable way to do this? I need to move this away from this page. --

550:

them. Unlike page links, section links do not turn red when they're broken; the only way to identify a broken section link is to click on it and see what happens.A template would be in order for ease of coding. This would reduce

716:, feel free to move or copy or edit as you would like. I was trying to come up with a way to automatically have it figure out which ref it is in sequence if you haven't named the refs. It can probably be done with a Lua module. 2957:

I don't know if the recent changes to the style of lead section refs at the Trump page, is a sign of changes to come in the lead of many pages. But, I figured a much larger number of editors should have a say in this.

489:

and see how they work in the lead there. They are added to most sentences or phrases in the lead and take one directly to the section on which that lead content is based, right where the citations are located. --

1681:

that makes that significantly more difficult? If not, it's hard to justify the additional clutter. You might as well add a "Scroll Down" button. Avoid reinventing wheels and providing redundant functionalities.

2729:

I have self-reverted and restored the previous version. Now we have at least seen how it looks (much cleaner) and how it works (very well). This will be developed further and brought to the community later. --

571:, as well as looking better in my opinion.If eliminating clutter in the lead is a main goal, I'm not sure that a bunch of #'s or §'s would be significantly less clutter than a bunch of 's. But that isn't the 2156:

I don't dislike the editors who implemented the changes. But, I wish they had opened this up to a wider audience, first. Anyways, it's no longer in either your or my hands. Give others a chance to chime in.

575:

goal.I don't think you necessarily need community permission to do this. PAGs are supposed to arise from common practices, not the other way around, and common practices always begin with a single use case.

1329:

I don't think you necessarily need community permission to do this. PAGs are supposed to arise from common practices, not the other way around, and common practices always begin with a single use case.

2640:

and RFCBEFORE is important enough to be enforced. It has enjoyed wide community support for many years, and I don't think it's constructive to just say "Oh well, shit happens" when it's violated.

2094:

There was no previous RFC on this topic. Discussion isn't settled, when it involves a small number of editors. The 'experiment' implemented at the Trump pages' lead? needs much more input.

2789:. This Rfc should be procedurally closed, and no assessment, in agreement or in opposition should be made, because that would give it a legitimacy that it does not deserve. This should be 760:. I couldn't quite figure out how that works though I'm sure there is a way to do it, possibly through hacky text processing, so I just made the number a parameter for now. I borrowed the 1423:

This is premature, I think. The idea was to try this out locally to gauge the reaction before taking it WP-wide or not. If you don't mean s.th. similar to the clickable "§", what kind of

1841:"but then you'd need a way to enable it selectively" Why would it be selectively enabled? Having this as a standard part of a section header would seem to be useful in and of itself. -- 158: 3258: 1246:

describes this. This concept IS NOT an absolute requirement for using leadrefs. I mention this just as an FYI. My essay deals with much more than just the lead or just leadrefs. --

1243: 486: 125: 1012:

detail. When combined with the lone-symbol leadref concept described here, a pleasant side effect is the elimination of all blue prose in the leads, further improving readability.

1084:, of course, so the links could be located there, but what about Biden and the House of Representatives? (The specific charges could also be replaced by "two charges", IMO.) 755:

be adopted. All I meant about having it calculate the sequence would be to number the links. If you use Knowledge's built-in linking or references it numbers them for you:

328:

like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to want to read more. The following table has some general guidelines for the length of the lead section:

1922: 207:

systematically about the organization of the lead can help editors discover faults in the article and guide them in rearranging and improving the article itself.

3112:

it was brought to the attention of a larger audience. If you don't like the change that's fine, but your behavior towards the other editor is unacceptable.

1456:

It can also be unhatted there, but then limited to what's relevant to the Trump article. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear, but do whatever works. --

976:

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

3268: 2125:

An RFC will certainly get feed back, for whether or not to implement proposed changes. It's a topic that shouldn't be decided by a tiny number of editors.

1076:? I’m not quite clear on the concept of where to add the symbol. The sentence in the example has six links to other pages (and I just noticed that two are 259: 184: 2848:

and other guideline or policy pages to VPP. If you feel that this is more in the brainstorming stage rather than a concrete proposal, you could start at

2708:

article in the first place. It looks terrible. Also, this isn't a bad RFC since it appears this style change was rushed without getting wider consensus.

1281:

I have asked about a better place to do this. It has implications and usefulness in myriad articles. It just happened to start as a discussion here. --

1080:). The two linking to "event" pages are no problem but what about the other four? "Abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are also mentioned in 2264:

The preceding discussion was moved to this page, from the Trump article. Thus my reason for opening the RFC here, rather then at the Trump article.

637:

without a template. I'd add the first one to get it started, but since my "retirement" I no longer edit AP2 articles and try to be logged out for

135: 2078:. Discussion was settled, editor came along, didn't like the consensus, and started a new RFC without discussion. Should be procedurally closed. 1124: 1101: 371: 88: 1549:

Your clickable "§" is the exact same one it took my a while to understand (and which is now implemented in the last paragraph of the lead of

2648: 2586: 2552: 2418: 2360:

Well it's about section linking from the lead section to the body in the same article as opposed to duplicating the citations in the lead.

1685: 1611:

If I knew how to write code I'd probably be making a lot more money than my employer is paying me. I'm afraid the button is way beyond me.

1509:

I unhatted the last part of the discussion at the Donald Trump Talk page so that editors looking at the lead will know what went on there.

1340: 1016: 998: 905: 741: 694: 645: 584: 314: 296: 191: 3108:

This comment is unjustified and cruel. A major change was made without community feedback and now that change has been undone. Thanks to @

1804:

I'm not sure if it's worth the effort at the moment, let's see first whether the section references will be accepted by the community.

933:

promoted by Trump" A slightly related, but different, type of example is found in that article, where there are links between specific

3263: 3032: 2841: 2849: 97: 967:

In April, as an alternative to citations, I replaced some of the links in the lead with links to the respective body sections and

2606: 2572: 2538: 2485: 2326: 2207:- It's too big a change to be implemented by a tiny handful of editors & IMHO, it's an optical distraction to a page's lead. 1809: 1730: 1616: 1558: 1514: 1432: 1391: 1311: 1230: 1168: 1132: 983: 891: 875: 734:

I was trying to come up with a way to automatically have it figure out which ref it is in sequence if you haven't named the refs.

3183:

when I'm discussing editor civility is less than evident, but thanks for summarizing my point. It seems some editors missed the

2896:

Thanks for bringing this to the attention of more editors. Despite the insistence from some editors, this wasn't implemented as

2641: 1850: 1150: 3235: 3196: 3174: 3156: 3142: 3121: 3103: 3088: 3074: 3052: 3018: 3001: 2967: 2936: 2913: 2891: 2861: 2827: 2802: 2769: 2747: 2717: 2696: 2671: 2656: 2631: 2610: 2594: 2576: 2560: 2542: 2489: 2474: 2459: 2440: 2426: 2396: 2371: 2355: 2330: 2308: 2294: 2273: 2259: 2234: 2216: 2187: 2166: 2151: 2134: 2120: 2103: 2089: 2050: 2011: 1986: 1968: 1951: 1870: 1854: 1834: 1813: 1799: 1778: 1751: 1734: 1693: 1675: 1661: 1646: 1620: 1606: 1584: 1562: 1540: 1518: 1503: 1473: 1436: 1418: 1395: 1370: 1348: 1315: 1298: 1263: 1234: 1216: 1193: 1172: 1154: 1136: 1051: 1024: 1006: 987: 959: 913: 895: 845: 819: 787: 749: 727: 702: 677: 653: 631: 615: 592: 544: 522: 507: 476: 402: 253: 220: 2023:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3245:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2279: 1450: 527:

It would first need to be adopted as part of our PAG. I'm not even sure where to propose the idea for community input. --

66: 2582:

still young and there will be more of that; lots of editors either don't understand or don't care about proper process.

2506: 2465:

reading experience with the current format. Currently, the squiggly links are a very poor user experience and design. --

713: 58: 33: 2602: 2568: 2534: 2481: 2322: 1805: 1726: 1612: 1554: 1510: 1483: 1428: 1387: 1336:

be moved off the Trump talk page. For now, it's about improving that article, which is the purpose of that talk page.

1307: 1226: 1164: 1128: 1068: 979: 918: 887: 871: 829: 429: 2566:

Is that a typo or do you mean that "nobody ... has claimed this RfC doesn't violate well-established WP guidelines"?

1820: 663: 1269:

reader, or assuage an even tinier handful of gadflies who want every Trump-critical thing in the lede referenced?

1654: 1441:

This has nothing to do with trying it out locally. That can be done anywhere, and right now you have tried it at

101: 2652: 2590: 2556: 2422: 1783:

Yes, if we had the assistance of the developers, it would be trivial to append a back to top button to the div

1689: 1344: 1020: 1002: 922: 909: 883: 745: 698: 649: 588: 2904:

doesn't give me a great deal of confidence that a larger audience will be convinced that this is a good idea.

317:. The table of contents, if displayed, generally appears between the lead section and the first subheading. 154: 1305:

Readers should be steered to our body first, and only then to other articles if they want even more detail.

3161:

Come on. Not that, evidently. The relevant text is, "A major change was made without community feedback".

815: 398: 337: 281: 249: 216: 2785:; such a basic change which might affect 6.5 million lead sections, cannot possibly be carried out at an 968: 765: 568: 320:

Rule of thumb: If a topic deserves a heading or subheading, then it deserves short mention in the lead.

39: 2299:

I hope they can come up with something better. What was implemented a 'few' days ago? isn't appealing.

1589:

Testing this and getting it accepted on the Trump article will likely ensure acceptance everywhere. --

1386:. What's the worst than can happen? I get reverted, and it's not as if that would be a new experience. 841: 518: 363: 269: 810:

I am unsure this will work, as you say in the thread above they will still object to its inclusion.

563:

a leadref, or remove the lead content).Since the "#" has only essay status, we could consider using

3232: 3171: 3139: 2833: 2637: 2470: 2455: 2351: 2290: 2184: 2171: 265: 3099: 3068: 3014: 2930: 2885: 2857: 2798: 2782: 2741: 2692: 2667: 2627: 2390: 2367: 2253: 2147: 2116: 2085: 1964: 1866: 1846: 1830: 1795: 1772: 1747: 1671: 1640: 1600: 1578: 1534: 1497: 1467: 1412: 1364: 1292: 1274: 1257: 1210: 1189: 1146: 1045: 953: 783: 723: 673: 627: 609: 538: 501: 470: 325: 277: 768:

approach, the target is a reference superscript itself, which is how the backlinking works from

2002:

An RFC on this topic, at a more appropriate venue (at a time yet to be chosen), will commence.

1445:, which is great. Here I'd like to see development and improvement, maybe using templates like 3084: 3062: 3048: 2997: 2963: 2924: 2879: 2823: 2765: 2735: 2436: 2384: 2340: 2318: 2314: 2304: 2269: 2247: 2230: 2212: 2162: 2130: 2099: 2046: 2007: 1982: 1947: 1766: 1634: 1594: 1572: 1528: 1491: 1461: 1406: 1358: 1286: 1251: 1204: 1039: 947: 811: 603: 532: 495: 464: 454: 414: 394: 310: 245: 212: 1225:: If I understood editor 161.97.225.237 FKA Mandruss correctly, we would be groundbreakers. 771: 384:"If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead according to its 93: 3192: 3152: 3117: 3057:

Yes, but not now. This is off the table until later. See my previous comment at 18:09. --

2984:'s page. I will (later today) close/hat this RFC, but with the understanding that Valjean 2909: 2786: 2713: 2336: 837: 514: 444: 96:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 1031:

Mandruss, that's so well said. I love it. As much as possible, it should be "lead --: -->

481:

We could avoid all these problems if we adopted my desired method of writing a lead with

3224: 3180: 3163: 3131: 3126: 2845: 2837: 2466: 2451: 2376: 2344: 2283: 2176: 938: 934: 930: 926: 825: 289: 273: 1353:

Feel free to unhat it at Talk:Donald Trump if that's better. See my comment below. --

324:

overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be

3252: 3095: 3038: 3009: 2866: 2853: 2813: 2794: 2756:

May I recommend, before you implement an 'updated' new version. Open up an RFC on it

2688: 2663: 2623: 2362: 2142: 2111: 2080: 1959: 1861: 1842: 1825: 1790: 1742: 1666: 1626: 1446: 1322: 1270: 1222: 1185: 1160: 1142: 833: 778: 718: 684: 668: 622: 449: 439: 434: 424: 285: 244:

If it can be improved, I'd like to do that, so your thoughts will be appreciated. --

3109: 3080: 3058: 3044: 3026: 2993: 2981: 2975: 2959: 2920: 2875: 2870: 2819: 2761: 2731: 2724: 2705: 2510: 2432: 2380: 2300: 2265: 2243: 2226: 2208: 2158: 2126: 2095: 2042: 2037: 2003: 1978: 1943: 1762: 1630: 1590: 1568: 1550: 1524: 1487: 1457: 1442: 1402: 1354: 1282: 1247: 1200: 1064: 1035: 943: 879: 761: 659: 599: 564: 528: 491: 460: 2501:. Part of a discussion on the Donald Trump talk page was moved to this page (see 487:

Knowledge:How to create and manage a good lead section#Lead "section references"

240:

Is there anything in the essay which would be good to include in the guideline?

3188: 3148: 3113: 2905: 2709: 2280:

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 145#RfC: Should the lead section have any citations?

577: 144: 80: 52: 211:

with this code if you want my immediate attention: {{ping|BullRangifer}}. --

2793:

asap, and reopened at the appropriate venue, when it may be aired properly.

1120: 1092: 939:

Steele dossier#Veracity and corroboration status of specific allegations

2840:

discussion forums with very wide viewership would be better – perhaps

1077: 2644:. But you're welcome to boldly remove RFCBEFORE and see what happens. 2526: 2525:, started this RfC about a WP-wide change of lead section refs, and 2514: 2502: 330: 230:

I would like to invite interested parties to comment on this essay:

2988:

open an RFC at a venue of Val's chosing, before implementing any

2636:

You seem to be missing the point, which is that the RfC violates

2687:

a change this big needs a formal RFC at one of the style pages.

2548:

this RfC doesn't violate well-established Knowledge guidelines.

1740:

I'll take a look and see how it could work better in a heading.

2517:). The proposer, who did not take part in either discussion, 237:

Do you think there is anything which contradicts the guideline?

92:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of 662:, it should be pretty easy. I set up a basic proof-of-concept 15: 3187:

line and are now making personal attacks like the one above.

1973:

I'm opening an RFC on this big change. It shouldn't be up to

1127:

for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December."

1384:

Just add a few without the template and see if it's accepted

1141:

I really like this idea and this specific implementation. --

393:

Mentioning every subsection in the lead can be too much. --

143: 2760:, so we can see if the community will accept or reject it. 2704:

and I'm astounded that this change was ever allowed on the

1957:

You're the only one of about 5 editors objecting to them.

707:

The one as used in the example above is extremely simple:

1184:

Has this format been used in any other live article yet?

1163:: I like it, too, and would be willing to give it a try. 758: 2844:. I'd probably choose that, with courtesy in-links from 756: 2522: 2518: 1722: 1718: 1379: 867: 863: 2832:

Someplace with high visibility. At the very least, at

1942:

page. They're visually distracting, to say the least.

1714:

one mouse movement, one keystroke, and one mouse click

1244:

Knowledge:How to create and manage a good lead section

921:, sorry for the delay in replying. I was not aware of 2919:

figure into any further moves. You will be heard. --

929:

article which does that: "The dossier is a factor in

3147:

There's nothing Bold about attacking other editors.

2836:, but because it's so major, probably one of the 234:Do you think it is in harmony with the guideline? 2900:and characterizing opposing arguments as simply 2029:Should the style of lead section refs be changed 3185:Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted 2869:, thanks for the good suggestions. The test at 2601:Striking my previous comment, I misread yours. 309:The lead section of a Knowledge article is the 175: 824:In that regard, it may be useful to hear from 666:, let me know if that's what you had in mind. 658:I'd be happy to help you set up the template @ 3259:Low-impact WikiProject Knowledge essays pages 2513:continued on the Donald Trump talk page (see 2509:… the discussion about improving the lead at 2278:I believe that Andrevan and Valjean refer to 8: 2515:Discussion of section references in the lead 2225:a page (in this 'new' style), is confusing. 1089:pressured Ukraine to investigate<sup: --> 2343:. The two are not the same thing at all. -- 2221:I should also add. The linking to sections 2035:style has recently been implemented at the 1119:"After he pressured Ukraine to investigate 1063:. Is this the clickable section reference 620:I agree with Mandruss: go ahead and do it. 260:Knowledge:Motto of the day/January 25, 2014 185:Knowledge:Motto of the day/January 25, 2014 161:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links. 2031:? See above preceding discussion, where a 1034:reduce the number of refs in the lead. -- 297:Knowledge:Tip of the day/November 24, 2015 192:Knowledge:Tip of the day/November 24, 2015 47: 32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 2818:What would be a more appropriate venue? 408:Lead section refs (leadrefs) development 3031:would you be willing to open an RFC at 1921:was invoked but never defined (see the 1889: 764:idea as well for my example. Using the 567:instead. This would be consistent with 49: 3184: 3023:You beat me to it, Andrevan. Anyways, 2521:against local consensus, was promptly 1713: 1424: 1383: 1328: 1304: 1081: 975: 733: 372:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Lead section 1331:There is no community consensus that 379:The Rule of thumb has been modified: 7: 2242:. This occurred at Donald Trump. -- 2019:The following discussion is closed. 21: 19: 2240:Bad RfC, premature, and wrong place 1913: 937:sections and the relevant specific 38:It is of interest to the following 3269:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages 1567:That's three birds! Go for it! -- 116:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages 100:. For a listing of essays see the 14: 1123:in 2019, he was impeached by the 86:This page is within the scope of 3241:The discussion above is closed. 1651:Yes that can be done, check out 878:) 17:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC) 513:If you think it's good, do it. 79: 65: 51: 20: 2646:(FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 2584:(FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 2550:(FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 2527:then started another discussion 2416:(FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 1683:(FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 1338:(FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 1014:(FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 996:(FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 903:(FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 739:(FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 692:(FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 643:(FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 582:(FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 2980:'s restored the status quo at 2529:on the Donald Trump talk page. 1425:clickable "section references" 1058:I misunderstood and did this: 221:05:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 1: 2723:Original version restored at 1451:User talk:Andrevan/Sectionref 557:{{leadref|First impeachment}} 254:08:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 3236:03:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC) 3197:03:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC) 3175:03:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC) 3157:03:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC) 3143:03:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC) 3122:23:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 3104:23:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 3089:21:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 3075:20:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 3053:20:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 3019:17:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 3002:09:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 2968:01:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2937:18:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 2914:18:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 2892:18:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 2862:16:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 2828:09:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 2803:08:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 2770:09:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 2748:05:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 2718:15:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2697:13:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2672:15:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2657:15:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2632:13:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2611:11:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2595:11:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2577:11:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2561:11:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2543:10:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2519:reverted a formatting change 2507:Meanwhile, back at the ranch 2490:11:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2475:10:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2460:10:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2441:09:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2427:06:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2397:00:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC) 2372:23:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2356:23:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2331:10:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2319:the one that was transferred 2309:09:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2295:05:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2274:02:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2260:02:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2235:09:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2217:02:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2188:03:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC) 2167:02:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2152:02:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2135:02:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2121:02:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2104:02:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2090:02:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2051:01:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2012:06:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC) 1987:01:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 1969:01:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 1952:01:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 1871:14:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC) 1855:11:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC) 1835:18:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC) 1814:18:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC) 1800:17:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC) 1779:17:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC) 1752:16:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC) 1735:11:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC) 1694:05:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC) 1676:23:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1647:22:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1621:21:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1607:20:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1585:20:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1563:20:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1541:20:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1519:19:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1504:19:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1474:19:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1437:19:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1419:18:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1396:18:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1371:19:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1349:19:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1316:18:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1299:18:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1264:16:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1235:17:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1217:16:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1194:13:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1173:17:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1155:17:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1137:13:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1073:he was impeached<sup: --> 1052:15:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1025:00:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 1007:23:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC) 988:16:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC) 960:15:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 914:23:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC) 896:18:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC) 846:15:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 820:10:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 788:15:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 750:05:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 728:05:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 714:User:Andrevan/Simple_Leadref 703:05:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 678:04:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 654:03:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 632:03:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 616:03:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 593:03:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 545:22:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC) 523:22:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC) 508:18:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC) 477:19:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 226:Please comment on this essay 130:This page has been rated as 110:Knowledge:WikiProject Essays 89:WikiProject Knowledge essays 3033:WP:Village Pump (proposals) 2842:WP:Village pump (proposals) 1109:and obstruction of Congress 931:several conspiracy theories 830:User:Space4Time3Continuum2x 430:User:Space4Time3Continuum2x 113:Template:WikiProject Essays 3285: 2850:WP:Village pump (idea lab) 2414:per Andrevan and Valjean. 1821:User:Andrevan/Leadref Demo 974:MOS is style, not policy ( 935:Steele dossier#Allegations 732:Not sure what is meant by 415:Talk:Donald Trump#Leadrefs 351:two or three paragraphs 3264:NA-Class Knowledge essays 3007:Great, removing RFC tag. 1655:User:Andrevan/Back to Top 1095:in 2019, he was impeached 483:Lead "section references" 403:17:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC) 354:three or four paragraphs 290:the mean of many extremes 151: 129: 74: 46: 3243:Please do not modify it. 2727:. The issue is now dead. 2021:Please do not modify it. 1303:Quoting Mandruss again: 1125:House of Representatives 1102:House of Representatives 2642:WP:Process is important 2315:this ongoing discussion 1938:add or re-add those to 1199:Not that I know of. -- 580:and see who complains. 334:< 15,000 characters 2603:Space4Time3Continuum2x 2569:Space4Time3Continuum2x 2535:Space4Time3Continuum2x 2482:Space4Time3Continuum2x 2335:OK, so it's not about 2323:Space4Time3Continuum2x 1995:RFC: Lead section refs 1806:Space4Time3Continuum2x 1727:Space4Time3Continuum2x 1613:Space4Time3Continuum2x 1555:Space4Time3Continuum2x 1511:Space4Time3Continuum2x 1484:Space4Time3Continuum2x 1429:Space4Time3Continuum2x 1388:Space4Time3Continuum2x 1308:Space4Time3Continuum2x 1227:Space4Time3Continuum2x 1165:Space4Time3Continuum2x 1129:Space4Time3Continuum2x 980:Space4Time3Continuum2x 919:Space4Time3Continuum2x 888:Space4Time3Continuum2x 872:Space4Time3Continuum2x 348:one or two paragraphs 199: 155:automatically assessed 148: 136:project's impact scale 2317:which evolved out of 1523:That makes sense. -- 766:User:Andrevan/Leadref 569:Template:Section link 286:related to all things 153:The above rating was 147: 2902:resistance to change 1917:The named reference 1427:are you suggesting? 278:no superfluous parts 2791:Procedurally closed 2781:, and violation of 2523:reverted themselves 969:got reverted pronto 2567: 2339:at all, but about 2022: 1104:for abuse of power 901:which works fine. 343:30,000 characters 149: 34:content assessment 2992:related changes. 2565: 2020: 1449:is developing at 1082:First impeachment 1071:is referring to: 455:User:Slatersteven 358: 357: 326:carefully sourced 313:before the first 304:Lead Section Size 272:to that which is 174: 173: 170: 169: 166: 165: 162: 3276: 3231: 3229: 3170: 3168: 3138: 3136: 3042: 3030: 3017: 2979: 2817: 2647: 2585: 2551: 2417: 2370: 2347: 2286: 2183: 2181: 2150: 2119: 2088: 1967: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1920: 1919:Kruzel_7/23/2018 1912: 1906: 1903: 1897: 1894: 1869: 1833: 1819:check it out on 1798: 1786: 1750: 1684: 1674: 1658: 1339: 1327:Quoting myself: 1326: 1113: 1108: 1099: 1091: 1075: 1062: 1015: 997: 904: 882:, have you seen 861: 856: 786: 775: 740: 726: 711: 693: 688: 676: 644: 630: 583: 558: 554: 331: 306: 280:; which exactly 152: 118: 117: 114: 111: 108: 94:Knowledge essays 83: 76: 75: 70: 69: 68: 63: 55: 48: 25: 24: 23: 16: 3284: 3283: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3225: 3223: 3164: 3162: 3132: 3130: 3043:'s suggestion? 3036: 3024: 3013: 2973: 2955: 2811: 2787:essay talk page 2645: 2583: 2549: 2480:and disappear. 2415: 2366: 2345: 2341:section linking 2284: 2177: 2175: 2146: 2115: 2084: 2072: 2025: 2016: 2015: 2014: 1997: 1963: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1918: 1916: 1914: 1909: 1904: 1900: 1895: 1891: 1865: 1829: 1794: 1784: 1746: 1682: 1670: 1664: 1652: 1337: 1320: 1110: 1105: 1096: 1088: 1072: 1059: 1013: 995: 902: 858: 853: 782: 769: 738: 722: 708: 691: 682: 672: 642: 626: 581: 556: 551: 445:User:Bob K31416 410: 376: 375: 367: 361:Summary essay: 307: 302: 300: 284:; which stands 282:answers its end 263: 228: 204: 198: 115: 112: 109: 106: 105: 102:essay directory 64: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3282: 3280: 3272: 3271: 3266: 3261: 3251: 3250: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 2954: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2838:WP:CENTralized 2806: 2805: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2751: 2750: 2720: 2699: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2649:161.97.225.237 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2587:161.97.225.237 2553:161.97.225.237 2530: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2419:161.97.225.237 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2374: 2321:to this page. 2311: 2237: 2219: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2071: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2061: 2060: 2053: 2026: 2017: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1996: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1977:five editors. 1930: 1929: 1907: 1898: 1888: 1887: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1755: 1754: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1686:161.97.225.237 1660: 1629:can do it. -- 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1454: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1341:161.97.225.237 1318: 1301: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1219: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1112:]</sup: --> 1107:]</sup: --> 1098:]</sup: --> 1090:]</sup: --> 1074:]</sup: --> 1061:]</sup: --> 1056: 1055: 1054: 1017:161.97.225.237 1009: 999:161.97.225.237 965: 964: 963: 962: 927:Steele dossier 916: 906:161.97.225.237 860:]</sup: --> 855:]</sup: --> 852:I just tested 850: 849: 848: 826:User:SPECIFICO 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 742:161.97.225.237 710:]</sup: --> 695:161.97.225.237 646:161.97.225.237 634: 585:161.97.225.237 553:]</sup: --> 458: 457: 452: 447: 442: 437: 432: 427: 409: 406: 391: 390: 377: 368: 360: 359: 356: 355: 352: 349: 345: 344: 340: 335: 301: 299: 294: 270:ascribe beauty 262: 257: 242: 241: 238: 235: 227: 224: 203: 200: 197: 196: 189: 176: 172: 171: 168: 167: 164: 163: 150: 140: 139: 128: 122: 121: 119: 84: 72: 71: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3281: 3270: 3267: 3265: 3262: 3260: 3257: 3256: 3254: 3244: 3237: 3234: 3230: 3228: 3221: 3218: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3173: 3169: 3167: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3141: 3137: 3135: 3128: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3040: 3034: 3028: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3011: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2977: 2970: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2952: 2938: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2926: 2922: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2881: 2877: 2872: 2868: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2815: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2777: 2776: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2749: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2737: 2733: 2728: 2726: 2721: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2700: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2683: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2620: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2531: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2497: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2431:Who are you? 2430: 2429: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2413: 2410: 2398: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2375: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2364: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2238: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2203: 2189: 2186: 2182: 2180: 2173: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2144: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2113: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2082: 2077: 2074: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2062: 2059: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2039: 2034: 2030: 2024: 2013: 2009: 2005: 1994: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1961: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1924: 1911: 1908: 1902: 1899: 1893: 1890: 1886: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1863: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1852: 1851:contributions 1848: 1844: 1843:User:Khajidha 1840: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1827: 1822: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1792: 1785:.mw-editlinks 1782: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1768: 1764: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1744: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1715: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1668: 1663: 1656: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1547: 1542: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1475: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1372: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1334: 1330: 1324: 1319: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1306: 1302: 1300: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1276: 1272: 1266: 1265: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1218: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1151:contributions 1148: 1144: 1143:User:Khajidha 1140: 1139: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1103: 1094: 1086: 1085: 1083: 1079: 1070: 1066: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1041: 1037: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1010: 1008: 1004: 1000: 992: 991: 990: 989: 985: 981: 977: 972: 970: 961: 957: 956: 955: 949: 945: 940: 936: 932: 928: 924: 920: 917: 915: 911: 907: 899: 898: 897: 893: 889: 885: 881: 877: 873: 869: 865: 851: 847: 843: 839: 835: 834:User:Khajidha 831: 827: 823: 822: 821: 817: 813: 809: 789: 785: 781: 780: 773: 767: 763: 759: 757: 753: 752: 751: 747: 743: 735: 731: 730: 729: 725: 721: 720: 715: 706: 705: 704: 700: 696: 686: 681: 680: 679: 675: 671: 670: 665: 661: 657: 656: 655: 651: 647: 640: 635: 633: 629: 625: 624: 619: 618: 617: 613: 612: 611: 605: 601: 596: 595: 594: 590: 586: 579: 574: 570: 566: 562: 548: 547: 546: 542: 541: 540: 534: 530: 526: 525: 524: 520: 516: 512: 511: 510: 509: 505: 504: 503: 497: 493: 488: 484: 479: 478: 474: 473: 472: 466: 462: 456: 453: 451: 450:User:Mandruss 448: 446: 443: 441: 440:User:Khajidha 438: 436: 435:User:Zaathras 433: 431: 428: 426: 425:User:Andrevan 423: 422: 421: 418: 417: 416: 407: 405: 404: 400: 396: 389: 387: 382: 381: 380: 374: 373: 366: 365: 364:WP:CREATELEAD 353: 350: 347: 346: 341: 339: 336: 333: 332: 329: 327: 321: 318: 316: 312: 305: 298: 295: 293: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 261: 258: 256: 255: 251: 247: 239: 236: 233: 232: 231: 225: 223: 222: 218: 214: 208: 201: 195: 193: 190: 188: 186: 183: 182: 181: 179: 160: 156: 146: 142: 141: 137: 133: 127: 124: 123: 120: 103: 99: 95: 91: 90: 85: 82: 78: 77: 73: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 31: 27: 18: 17: 3242: 3226: 3219: 3165: 3133: 3067: 3066: 3008: 2989: 2985: 2982:Donald Trump 2971: 2956: 2929: 2928: 2901: 2897: 2884: 2883: 2871:Donald Trump 2790: 2778: 2757: 2740: 2739: 2725:Donald Trump 2722: 2706:Donald Trump 2701: 2684: 2638:WP:RFCBEFORE 2511:Donald Trump 2498: 2447: 2411: 2389: 2388: 2361: 2252: 2251: 2239: 2222: 2204: 2178: 2172:Wp:RfcBefore 2141: 2110: 2079: 2075: 2063: 2057: 2038:Donald Trump 2036: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2018: 1974: 1958: 1939: 1936:PLEASE DON'T 1935: 1934: 1915:Cite error: 1910: 1901: 1892: 1884: 1860: 1859:That's true 1824: 1789: 1771: 1770: 1741: 1710: 1665: 1639: 1638: 1599: 1598: 1577: 1576: 1551:Donald Trump 1533: 1532: 1496: 1495: 1482: 1466: 1465: 1443:Donald Trump 1411: 1410: 1380:did the deed 1377: 1363: 1362: 1332: 1291: 1290: 1267: 1256: 1255: 1240: 1221:Replying to 1209: 1208: 1183: 1159:Replying to 1114:in December. 1111:<sup: --> 1106:<sup: --> 1097:<sup: --> 1060:<sup: --> 1044: 1043: 1032:body --: --> 973: 966: 952: 951: 859:<sup: --> 854:<sup: --> 812:Slatersteven 777: 762:section sign 717: 709:<sup: --> 667: 638: 621: 608: 607: 572: 565:section sign 560: 552:<sup: --> 537: 536: 500: 499: 482: 480: 469: 468: 459: 419: 412: 411: 395:BullRangifer 392: 388:due weight." 385: 383: 378: 370: 362: 322: 319: 308: 303: 276:; which has 264: 243: 229: 209: 205: 194: 187: 180: 177: 131: 87: 40:WikiProjects 30:project page 29: 3079:Very well. 2783:WP:CONLEVEL 2313:It’s about 413:Moved from 369:Read more: 338:medium size 288:; which is 3253:Categories 3035:page, per 2972:Seeing as 2953:Discussion 2174:. Cheers! 1885:References 1625:I suspect 838:Bob K31416 578:Just Do It 515:Bob K31416 132:Low-impact 98:discussion 62:Low‑impact 3227:Thinker78 3166:Thinker78 3134:Thinker78 2467:Guest2625 2452:Guest2625 2377:Redrose64 2179:Thinker78 1923:help page 1333:precludes 1087:After he 246:Brangifer 213:Brangifer 3096:Zaathras 3039:Mathglot 2867:Mathglot 2854:Mathglot 2814:Mathglot 2795:Mathglot 2689:Mr Ernie 2664:Mr Ernie 2624:Mr Ernie 2503:Leadrefs 1323:Zaathras 1271:Zaathras 1223:Zaathras 1186:Zaathras 1161:Khajidha 1069:proposal 923:that RfC 884:this RfC 712:It's at 685:Andrevan 178:Mentions 3220:Comment 3181:WP:BOLD 3179:Citing 3127:Wp:Bold 3110:GoodDay 3081:GoodDay 3069:PING me 3059:Valjean 3045:GoodDay 3027:Valjean 2994:GoodDay 2976:Valjean 2960:GoodDay 2931:PING me 2921:Valjean 2886:PING me 2876:Valjean 2846:WP:LEAD 2834:WT:LEAD 2820:GoodDay 2779:Bad Rfc 2762:GoodDay 2742:PING me 2732:Valjean 2499:Bad RfC 2433:GoodDay 2412:Bad RfC 2391:PING me 2381:Valjean 2301:GoodDay 2266:GoodDay 2254:PING me 2244:Valjean 2227:GoodDay 2209:GoodDay 2159:GoodDay 2127:GoodDay 2096:GoodDay 2076:Bad RFC 2043:GoodDay 2004:GoodDay 1979:GoodDay 1944:GoodDay 1773:PING me 1763:Valjean 1641:PING me 1631:Valjean 1601:PING me 1591:Valjean 1579:PING me 1569:Valjean 1535:PING me 1525:Valjean 1498:PING me 1488:Valjean 1468:PING me 1458:Valjean 1413:PING me 1403:Valjean 1365:PING me 1355:Valjean 1293:PING me 1283:Valjean 1258:PING me 1248:Valjean 1211:PING me 1201:Valjean 1100:by the 1078:MOS:SOB 1065:Valjean 1046:PING me 1036:Valjean 954:PING me 944:Valjean 880:Valjean 772:reflist 660:Valjean 641:edits. 610:PING me 600:Valjean 539:PING me 529:Valjean 502:PING me 492:Valjean 471:PING me 461:Valjean 420:Pings: 315:heading 311:section 134:on the 3233:(talk) 3172:(talk) 3140:(talk) 2898:a test 2348:rose64 2287:rose64 2223:within 2185:(talk) 2070:Survey 2041:page. 1788:line. 1382:, per 832:, and 485:. See 274:simple 202:Launch 157:using 107:Essays 59:Essays 36:scale. 3189:Nemov 3149:Nemov 3114:Nemov 3010:Andre 2906:Nemov 2758:first 2710:Nemov 2363:Andre 2143:Andre 2112:Andre 2081:Andre 1960:Andre 1862:Andre 1826:Andre 1791:Andre 1743:Andre 1667:Andre 1627:Andre 1447:Andre 1121:Biden 1093:Biden 779:Andre 719:Andre 669:Andre 623:Andre 342:: --> 28:This 3193:talk 3153:talk 3118:talk 3100:talk 3085:talk 3063:talk 3049:talk 2998:talk 2986:will 2964:talk 2925:talk 2910:talk 2880:talk 2858:talk 2824:talk 2799:talk 2766:talk 2736:talk 2714:talk 2693:talk 2668:talk 2653:talk 2628:talk 2607:talk 2591:talk 2573:talk 2557:talk 2539:talk 2505:). 2486:talk 2471:talk 2456:talk 2437:talk 2423:talk 2385:talk 2352:talk 2350:🌹 ( 2337:refs 2327:talk 2305:talk 2291:talk 2289:🌹 ( 2270:talk 2248:talk 2231:talk 2213:talk 2163:talk 2131:talk 2100:talk 2047:talk 2008:talk 1983:talk 1975:only 1948:talk 1847:talk 1810:talk 1767:talk 1731:talk 1723:here 1721:and 1719:here 1690:talk 1635:talk 1617:talk 1595:talk 1573:talk 1559:talk 1529:talk 1515:talk 1492:talk 1462:talk 1433:talk 1407:talk 1392:talk 1359:talk 1345:talk 1312:talk 1287:talk 1275:talk 1252:talk 1231:talk 1205:talk 1190:talk 1169:talk 1147:talk 1133:talk 1040:talk 1021:talk 1003:talk 984:talk 948:talk 910:talk 892:talk 876:talk 857:and 842:talk 816:talk 746:talk 699:talk 664:here 650:talk 604:talk 589:talk 573:only 533:talk 519:talk 496:talk 465:talk 399:talk 386:real 250:talk 217:talk 159:data 3065:) ( 2990:new 2927:) ( 2882:) ( 2738:) ( 2387:) ( 2346:Red 2285:Red 2250:) ( 2058:Yes 2033:new 1940:any 1905:bar 1896:foo 1849:) ( 1769:) ( 1637:) ( 1597:) ( 1575:) ( 1531:) ( 1494:) ( 1464:) ( 1409:) ( 1361:) ( 1289:) ( 1254:) ( 1207:) ( 1149:) ( 1067:’s 1042:) ( 950:) ( 639:any 606:) ( 561:and 555:to 535:) ( 498:) ( 467:) ( 268:We 126:Low 3255:: 3195:) 3155:) 3129:. 3120:) 3102:) 3087:) 3073:) 3051:) 3015:🚐 3000:) 2966:) 2935:) 2912:) 2890:) 2860:) 2852:. 2826:) 2801:) 2768:) 2746:) 2716:) 2702:No 2695:) 2685:No 2670:) 2655:) 2630:) 2609:) 2593:) 2575:) 2559:) 2541:) 2488:) 2473:) 2458:) 2448:No 2439:) 2425:) 2395:) 2368:🚐 2354:) 2329:) 2307:) 2293:) 2282:-- 2272:) 2258:) 2233:) 2215:) 2205:No 2165:) 2148:🚐 2133:) 2117:🚐 2102:) 2086:🚐 2064:No 2049:) 2010:) 1985:) 1965:🚐 1950:) 1925:). 1867:🚐 1853:) 1831:🚐 1823:. 1812:) 1796:🚐 1777:) 1748:🚐 1733:) 1692:) 1672:🚐 1662:🔝 1659:: 1657:}} 1653:{{ 1645:) 1619:) 1605:) 1583:) 1561:) 1539:) 1517:) 1502:) 1472:) 1435:) 1417:) 1394:) 1378:I 1369:) 1347:) 1314:) 1297:) 1277:) 1262:) 1233:) 1215:) 1192:) 1171:) 1153:) 1135:) 1050:) 1023:) 1005:) 986:) 958:) 912:) 894:) 886:? 866:, 844:) 836:. 828:, 818:) 784:🚐 774:}} 770:{{ 748:) 724:🚐 701:) 674:🚐 652:) 628:🚐 614:) 591:) 543:) 521:) 506:) 475:) 401:) 292:. 252:) 219:) 3191:( 3151:( 3116:( 3098:( 3083:( 3061:( 3047:( 3041:: 3037:@ 3029:: 3025:@ 2996:( 2978:: 2974:@ 2962:( 2923:( 2908:( 2878:( 2856:( 2822:( 2816:: 2812:@ 2797:( 2764:( 2734:( 2712:( 2691:( 2666:( 2651:( 2626:( 2605:( 2589:( 2571:( 2555:( 2537:( 2484:( 2469:( 2454:( 2435:( 2421:( 2383:( 2325:( 2303:( 2268:( 2246:( 2229:( 2211:( 2161:( 2129:( 2098:( 2045:( 2006:( 1981:( 1946:( 1845:( 1808:( 1765:( 1729:( 1688:( 1633:( 1615:( 1593:( 1571:( 1557:( 1527:( 1513:( 1490:( 1460:( 1431:( 1405:( 1390:( 1357:( 1343:( 1325:: 1321:@ 1310:( 1285:( 1273:( 1250:( 1229:( 1203:( 1188:( 1167:( 1145:( 1131:( 1038:( 1019:( 1001:( 982:( 946:( 908:( 890:( 874:( 868:# 864:§ 862:( 840:( 814:( 744:( 697:( 687:: 683:@ 648:( 602:( 587:( 531:( 517:( 494:( 463:( 397:( 266:→ 248:( 215:( 138:. 104:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:How to create and manage a good lead section - Knowledge

Index