Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Lead section page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:LEADWT:LEAD

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page may fall under the contentious topics procedure and be given additional attention, as it may be closely associated to the article titles policy and capitalisation. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

According to MOS:LEADCITE, if I interpret correctly, references in lead sections may be omitted if the information is already in the body and references can be found there. I think there's a problem with this guideline: if a reader wants to verify some information in the lead section, we're forcing them to look through the article for that specific piece of information. Finding it may not be easy at all, for example if the information is phrased differently, or found in an unexpected section, or in the middle of a lot of text, or if the user is not familiar with Ctrl + F, or doesn't have the lucidity to understand where the information is likely to be found by just scanning the table of contents, or even if they don't know about this guideline and don't assume that the source for the information can be found in the article body! In short, I think this guideline may make verifiability harder for readers. Sophivorus (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that a user who wants to verify and edit the lead (per Wikipedia policies) should read the article first, which solves the issue. If the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body, then the only way to assure that is to actually read the body. Praemonitus (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Requiring editors to read the article in order to edit the lead seems totally reasonable to me. However, requiring readers (aka not editors) to read the article in order to verify the information in the lead, seems unreasonable to me, per the reasons listed above. Sophivorus (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Controversial biographical facts about living people should be sourced, regardless, in my opinion. If a claim is often challenged then it might be a good idea to source that too. But I also think we should work on the principle of requiring readers to read the article because the lead is a summary of the article content, not an abridgment. I think that omitting the sources from the lead helps to make that distinction clearer. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm unclear why your latter concern would be a requirement. If the helpful reader can't edit the article because of semi-protection (or other reasons such as COI), they are free to report it on the talk page and the matter can be addressed by auto-confirmed editors. Otherwise, this issue just seems speculative. Praemonitus (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I know that MOS:CITELEAD has been a subject of perennial criticism. I can't find the most recent discussion, but a prior one from a year ago is here. I'm increasingly coming to the view that it should be reformed, but it would take a large-scale discussion that extensively considers past consensus to get it changed. Sdkb ^talk 17:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Some articles of wikipedia have citationless leads while others cite reliable sources. What do the rules say? What happens in case something is disputed (for example, the date of birth or the name a person was born with, if it was different at birth)?-Baangla (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The rules say that content that could reasonably be disputed must be cited. Some disputes are not reasonable. And when the lead summarizes material that is elaborated later with proper citations, then that material is cited. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Why should a random reader know that the lead is a summary of content found below? Why should a random reader know that citations for the content they are reading right now, can be found in some section below? Sophivorus (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

If they don't know and complain about the lack of sourcing, they'll be told. Gawaon (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I like MOS:LEADCITE. I think it avoids stuffing the full article in the lead. I wonder if it is an option to “cite” an article section in the lead. I agree that we shouldn’t make readers Ctrl-F, but encouraging them to skip the body altogether (by lead citations) seems self-defeating. Dw31415 (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You can link to a relevant section, e.g., ] in any section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Four thoughts:

• Verifiability does not inherently require little blue clicky numbers. A reader is able to verify our content if they can find a reliable source through any method at all, including methods like "using their favorite web search engine" or "contacting a reference librarian". Merely hoping that they would look at another section for a citation does not seem too onerous by comparison.
• Remember how short most of our articles are. The median article has 13 sentences. 80% of our articles have less than 1,000 words (3–4 minutes reading time). Even someone who is impatient to find the ref can manage to glance over that much.
• Readers mostly (99.7%) don't care about the sources. For example, you recently edited Electricity sector in Argentina. There are 68 refs in that article. There were about 6000 page views during the last year. That means that during the last year (if we assume even distribution), about 30% of the sources in the article were checked once and 70% were never clicked through (or, if you prefer a different distribution, 15% were checked twice and 85% never; or 10% were checked three times and 90% never). The other 5,982 page views had nobody clicking on them. Readers almost never check the refs. Therefore we should not put too much emphasis on "the readers" when we are talking about the correct way to organize citations.
• Sometimes the difficulty with sourcing the lead is that we're trying to provide summaries. The sources cited in the body may provide details ("Wonderpam is indicated for the treatment of infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, Burkholderia cepacia, Burkholderia pseudomallei, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Alcaligenes faecalis, and Moraxella catarrhalis") and we want to provide a general statement in the lead like "used to treat bacterial infections". Or similarly, we may have sources providing great detail about a person's career, but not one that says something vague like "a long career in politics", and while it's a reasonable summary, trying to cite it may produce complaints from that class of editors who think that if it's not Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, it's original research. In such cases, leaving it uncited might reduce pointless drama.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

In the section titled, "Editing the lead section" please add that an editor can edit just the lead, without having to open up the whole article for editing.-Baangla (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The lead section has no individual edit link, so please explain what you mean. Praemonitus (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

On a mobile, when anyone clicks the 🖋️ icon on the top right, only the lead is editable, not the whole article.-Baangla (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

You can do the same on desktop via gadget. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, well then it's not universal so the statement would need provisos. Praemonitus (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Fall of Phnom Penh, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. (RfC is about MOS:REDUNDANCY) Dw31415 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like to ask for clarification about how MOS:LEADLANG is meant to apply when more than one non-English language is closely associated with the subject. The thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 23#LEADLANG clarification and the ongoing RfC at Talk:Hebron (about including both Arabic and Hebrew names in the lead) show that editors are reading this differently.

LEADLANG currently says that "a single equivalent name in another language may be included in the lead sentence", but the same numbered list also says that "separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas". In ] thread, @SMcCandlish commented that "separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas" should be added in a footnote which makes sense but was note that obvious with the current wording.

My concrete question is:

• In cases where more than one non-English language is closely associated with the subject, is LEADLANG intended to mean that

(a) we keep one foreign-language equivalent in the lead sentence and move the others to a footnote (or a "Names" section),

or (b) we move all non-English equivalents to a footnote and keep only the English name in the lead sentence?

It would be helpful if the guideline could state this explicitly, so editors facing cases like Hebron (Arabic and Hebrew) have a clear answer to rely on. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that, if two or more non-English languages are about equally relevant, moving them all to a note is the logical outcome. Gawaon (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

That's great, because one of them is definitely more relevant than the others (there is more than two). M.Bitton (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

"If you want to start a war, keep one non-English equivalent in the lead and move all the others to a footnote. If you want to keep the peace, move all of them to a footnote." Largoplazo (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

That's an easy choice. Since peace is not merely the absence of war, we'll just keep the relevant non-English equivalent. M.Bitton (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like you're on the side of war. Largoplazo (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gawaon, @Largoplazo (and any other editor), would you accept to add this kind of sentence in MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV: "When more than one non-English language is closely associated with the subject, the lead sentence should normally not single out one of them. In such cases, all non-English equivalents should be placed together in a single explanatory footnote (or in a "Names" section or similar), rather than in the text of the first sentence, in order to avoid clutter and disputes over which language to feature" or should I launch a RfC for that? Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a misleading question: the Arabic name is the undisputed local name, while the Hebrew name isn't (it's literally a foreign name with no special local status). Furthermore, adding the Hebrew name would serve no purpose other than to include a cherry picked part of the etymology in the lead sentence (something that is specifically disallowed by MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV). M.Bitton (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Please don’t conflate two separate issues. Here, I am only requesting a clarification of the rule, not discussing a specific case. Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes discussing the specific case(s) helps us make sure that we're clarifying the rule correctly.

I suspect that some more complicated cases could be found in India, which is enormously multilingual. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It is hard for me to imagine a scenario so complex that it would fall outside the scope of this rule. Could you give an example?

The real difficulty lies in defining ‘closely associated language’, but I would prefer to address that separately at a later stage. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Some people find it easier to evaluate a rule abstractly, and others find it easier to evaluate a rule by looking at examples. Therefore, we often talk about specific cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand your point. The problem is that when you use an example, we end up talking about the example instead of the rules, and we can easily go off topic, as happened with the Amazigh example below. But I appreciate your help to clarify the rule. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

That claim ignores history; the Jewish population called it Hebrew: חֶבְרוֹן, romanized: Chevron. The fact that the British expelled the local Jewish population doesn't magically make it a foreign name. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It has been called "al-Khalil" (Arabic: الخليل) for centuries and before that, it was called Ḥabra (Arabic: حبرة) or Ḥabrūn (Arabic: حبرون). M.Bitton (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

There is an RfC Talk:Hebron please use it. This thread is for another purpose. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Then why did you mention the RfC and are now asking an editor who agrees with you to !vote in the RfC that you started? M.Bitton (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

No objections from me, though I doubt it'll help much. (The disputes will then simply be about whether languages are really "closely associated" with the subject.) Gawaon (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I knew it. I wanted to clarify it in two steps. First, the easy stuff, how to read the rules.

And then the most difficult one what is a "closely associated language", but I think we need a RfC for this one. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I think we should also address whether putting alternative names in the infobox (if any) is sufficient, or if we want a footnote and infobox content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

We have this problem on pages relating to Algeria. The country has two official languages, which are also the two spoken languages: Arabic and Berber (Tamazight).

However, due to pov-pushing, Arabic is always imposed, even for Berber-speaking regions. The MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV recommendations are cited as justification for systematically eliminating any visibility of the Berber language at the top of articles, disregarding any encyclopedic balance (even though this official language is used on town hall facades, road signs, APS news reports, etc.).

So, regardless of the solution chosen (two or more languages ​​at the top, a footnote, etc.), when there are several official languages, they must be given equal weight, and Wikipedia must not be used as a platform to favor one over the other. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Nope. 1) Nobody speaks Tamazight (an artificial language). 2) The country only has one official written language (the script for the other hasn't even been chosen, much less standardized). 3) We had a RfC about it (in which the misleading and simplistic statements were exposed for what they are). M.Bitton (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton, are you sure about that? We have an article about Tamazight, and it says nothing about it being an artificial language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am certain that it is an artificial language (as in not spoken by anyone) in Algeria. M.Bitton (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from imposing personal opinions and judgments ("an artificial language"). The RFC is inconclusive; it resulted in a tie (Talk:Algeria/Archive_3#RFC_on_Infobox_and_Lede). The withdrawal is not based on any established consensus but on a unilateral decision to remove the Tamazight names, justified by MOS:LEDE (example ). Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

It is an artificial language (that nobody speaks). This is a fact. M.Bitton (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Tamazight is a language, comprised of several dialects, spoken by 25-30% of Algerians according to INALCO in Paris] The Algerian Press Service website publishes several news items daily, for example: .

There are, of course, conspiracy theories to deny this, such as this one: Monsieur Patillo (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You mean "comprised of mutually unintelligible languages". Anyway, Abderrezak Dourari (who needs no introduction) describes it as what it is "an artificial language that nobody speaks and nobody understands, not even the ones who invented it in a lab". M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

That's INALCO's opinion, not mine.

Dourari expressed this opinion in the press, not through academic work. We had the case of Abdou Elimam , who claimed that Algerian Arabic was the Punic language that had miraculously survived, before being debunked by the scientific community .

We can incidentally find the same rhetoric regarding literary Arabic in academic publications. Example: How can we expect a child to love an artificial language that is forced upon them, if the teacher strives to devalue and make them hate the idioms of their own verbal repertoire? in Le Système éducatif algérien face à l’hybridation linguistique by N. Khelouz. Therefore, please refrain from putting forward personal opinions based on press clippings or partial accounts of debates between specialists, and stick to what is widely accepted. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Abderrezak Dourari is not a random person, he is the director of the National Pedagogical and Linguistic Centre for the teaching of Tamazight. Anyway, following me here to argue about something that has been discussed ad nauseam isn't going to achieve anything. M.Bitton (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

1) I don't follow you; I'd like to point out that my message wasn't initially addressed to you. I've heard enough about MOS:LEADLANG to be interested in the subject and to have a position to express.

2) Dourrari doesn't go through an academic knowledge production and validation process. Here we're talking about this press article from a run-of-the-mill Algerian online newspaper . The example of Elimam and others (Ben Aissa, etc.) shows why this is problematic. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you did (I know it and so do you). Your opinion of what "the scholar and director of the National Pedagogical and Linguistic Centre for the teaching of Tamazight" says about Tamazight is obviously irrelevant M.Bitton (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The lead to Tamazight says: "The Berber languages have a level of variety similar to the Romance languages, although they are sometimes referred to as a single collective language, often as "Berber", "Tamazight", or "Amazigh"....Millions of people in Morocco and Algeria natively speak a Berber language".

The BBC says "Arabic and Tamazight, which is spoken by the Amazigh or Berber minority, are the country's official languages".

If the millions of people in Morocco and Algeria aren't speaking Tamazight, then what are they speaking? If "nobody speaks" it, then why did it get adopted as a national language? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a difference between the generic term "Tamazight" (for the mutually unintelligible Berber languages) and "Tamazight" (the name of the artificial language that is being developed in Algeria). M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• I couldn't answer better than an excerpt from an article on the subject (sorry for the length). : Miloud Taïfi, Unité et diversité du berbère, Détermination des lieux linguistiques d’intercompréhension :

Les parlers recensés sont certes nombreux, mais il serait erroné d’en exagérer l’éparpillement jusqu’à une atomisation extrême. Je pense qu’André Basset - auquel on ne cesse de le lui reprocher, parfois avec véhémence – a raison de parler d’un fourmillement de variations si, bien sûr, on entend par variations la diversité des faits dialectaux et non celle des parlers. La variation étant l’une des caractéristiques fondamentales de tout système linguistique, le berbère n’en est pas évidemment, de ce fait, dépourvu. Mais les données grammaticales, phonétiques et lexicales, pour peu qu’on les analyse et les compare, permettent la délimitation de larges zones géo-linguistiques à travers l’aire recouverte par la langue berbère. Les descriptions n’ont évidemment comme objet d’étude immédiat que les parlers, mais au-delà des parlers, la comparaison reconstruit et distingue des supra-systèmes qui, sans présenter une homogénéisation parfaite – ce qui serait contraire à la langue –, recèlent chacun des traits structuraux et lexicaux communs. Ce sont ces traits permanents et partagés qui assurent une large perméabilité entre les parlers appartenant au même supra-système. Le test de l’intercom-préhension le prouve puisque les locuteurs berbérophones d’une même région géo-linguistique se comprennent et communiquent entre eux en procédant, quand c’est nécessaire, à quelques réajustements pour neutraliser les différences susceptibles de bloquer la communication. Ces réajustements aboutissent à un brassage des parlers : les particularismes s’estompent progressivement au profit de l’unité du supra-système. Les mouvements des populations jouent un rôle important, depuis quelques décennies, dans l’émergence et la consolidation des supra-systèmes, en facilitant le contact linguistique direct entre les berbérophones de régions éloignées. Les mass-média, notamment les émissions radiophoniques en berbère, et la littérature orale ou écrite qui connaît un regain de faveur, participent aussi à la formation et à l’affermissement des supra-systèmes.

• The Arabic language has an even more degraded system. The highly disparate dialects (a Mauritanian cannot understand an Iraqi) necessitate learning a standard language, leading to a situation of diglossia described by Taieb Baccouche in his article. sometimes leading to a feeling of artificiality within the Algerian school system .

Monsieur Patillo (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton, @Monsieur Patillo, @Skitash,@WhatamIdoing: may I suggest to open a new RFC on this topic. If I understand correctly the previous one is 4 years old? Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't just open RfCs just for the sake of it, especially when nothing has changed since the last one. M.Bitton (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe M.Bitton is referring to Standard Algerian Berber, which is a standardized language being developed since 2016. It's a constructed language with no native speakers, drawn from several regional Berber varieties (which are mutually unintelligible to one another). Skitash (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Somehow my feeling is that this discussion has gone way off course. Gawaon (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

... by at least 1,800 miles. Thincat (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

What I wanted to opine, but was looking for the best place to include it before I found your comment, was this: The question that was posed here was about the method of handling (footnote all or footnote only the non-primary ones) cases where multiple languages are applicable, but one or more may be considered "primary" relative to the others. It feels like M.Bitton has hijacked the discussion to argue against the the inclusion of the names of certain places in certain languages in the articles about them. That's completely off-topic and disruptive to the discussion that's on-topic. Largoplazo (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The "certain places" were referred to by others. If anyone can't see the blindingly obvious, then that's their problem. M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The initial question was a valid one on its own. The fact that you have a dispute over a different aspect of the specific cases that were raised doesn't mean that that dispute is on-topic here. Nobody forced you to go in that direction. Largoplazo (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

It mentioned the RfC is the lead sentence. As for being forced: nobody forced you to personalise the discussion (while adding no value whatsoever to it). M.Bitton (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

You were basically arguing (and, here, you're continuing to argue) that you just had to take the discussion off-topic because someone mentioned something related to it. So I pointed out that, no, no one forced you to do that. You throwing that back at me as a retort doesn't even make any sense. (Especially after the comment by you about how you're going to ignore me. Your removal of that comment was prescient.) Largoplazo (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

That's your opinion (an irrelevant one, as far as I'm concerned). M.Bitton (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

That’s the opinion of several people here Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The rule already specifies that it should be either in a footnote or directly in the lead. It seems this point has already been settled. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Boutboul I agree to an RFC if necessary; the previous one didn't resolve the issue, contrary to the claims above.

The problem with footnotes is that we're often given Arabic as the lead text, while Tamazight is relegated to "elsewhere" (footnote, article, etc.). There needs to be equal treatment. I don't see anything in the rule (but I could be wrong) that specifies this. And the problem could apply to many other situations (e.g., Kurdish, Hebrew, Turkmen, etc.).

Finally, while attention is being diverted to other languages, Arabic presents a significant challenge because it almost always contains two names: one in dialect (the most common) and one in standard Arabic (spoken by a small percentage of Arabic speakers, but the official language). For example: Blida/Al Bulayada, Dzair/Al Jazair (Algiers). So, which form and usage should be prioritized? Both? These questions should not be left to a small group of contributors heavily focused on a Standard Arabic option. Note: Berber, for its part, has only one proper noun form for cities in all dialects.

If everything must be put in footnotes (and if that is the interpretation emerging from the MOS:LEDE recommendations), I am willing to comply with this practice. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the solution needs to be moving all of these out of the first sentence. What do you think about this?

• If there are only one or two languages/ways of writing the name, put them both in the first sentence.
• If there are three or more languages/transliteration systems, use English and put everything else in a footnote, and (most?) in the infobox.

This would require changes to the first sentence of Gdańsk, which currently gives three names. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It's a lot more complicated than what they're claiming by comparing apples to oranges and throwing simplistic statements in the mix; but since this isn't the place to discuss it, they are more than welcome to restart a discussion in the appropriate article. M.Bitton (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing There are two languages, but the sentence: If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single equivalent name in another language may be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. from MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV is invoked to prevent the introduction of any second foreign language alongside English.

Therefore, either this rule is relaxed/does not apply, or a footnote must be used for any two or more equivalents. The example of Gdańsk is ingenious in its respect for the different local languages ​​(and this is what is practiced on other Wikipedia projects), but in this case, the guidelines must allow it. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

"closely associated" is where the devil lives. M.Bitton (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I think we could use some explanatory essays on how we might use "closely associated" here Katzrockso (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding a note in this page to explain this but it should be done through an RfC because the topic is a little bit touchy, what do you think? Michael Boutboul (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It's often more effective to write a whole page about WP:Closely associated languages than to add a little note to a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your statement but not sure it will be accepted Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• How should we interpret the current rules when there are two official languages? Specifically, when there is a "conflict"? Should there be a footnote?
• If consensus is required to change them, why not hold a consultation (RFC...) ?

Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

This what I try to clarify, and what I understand is that both should go to a footnote. Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

 Note: the devil is in the details. If someone thinks that a name is "closely associated" (or as closely associated as another) with the subject, then the onus is on them to prove that it is. Failure to do that (while making baseless assertions) is just a waste of everyone's time. M.Bitton (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

See, e.g., Academy Palace. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions has some opinions, but overall I suspect that it's ultimately solved by not strictly adhering to the "single equivalent name" recommendation. There were some complexities discussed there that may be relevant. Markussep might remember enough to provide some advice here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

While the Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions make sense for names in Brussels, they can't apply to other places. Ultimately, just like any other rule, its application has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. M.Bitton (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If that's truly the case, then this guideline shouldn't say anything about what to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Why shouldn’t it? It's just a guideline that tells us how to deal with different situations (something that has to be done on a case-by-case basis). M.Bitton (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's truly case-by-case, then there is no helpful advice for this guideline to give. Therefore, it should stay silent instead of providing wrong information.

If we have advice on how to deal with different situations (X for one name, Y for two, Z for three...), then it's not case-by-base. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

We seem to be talking about the same thing (using different words). What's important is that we agree that we have advice on how to deal with different situations. Hypothetical examples (like the one below) should defuse any confusion. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I've thought of a complication: If there are three (or more) names, I'm suggesting that the English be used. See Mount Everest#Name for one article for which we've more or less done this, on a rather grand scale. But what if we have three names, and none of them are English? If a river or mountain is at the border between three or more countries, one might realistically expect to have three or more languages involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If there are more than two names (that are equally "closely associated" with the subject), then they should be added to a footnote (as to not clutter the lead sentence). At least, that's my understanding of the rule. M.Bitton (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

But something has to be in the lead sentence. Imagine (what I hope is) a hypothetical scenario:

• There exists a mountain that does not have a generally accepted English name.
• Different parts of the mountain are in four different countries.
• Each country speaks a different language, and each country has a different name for the mountain.

This guideline does not want:

• This mountain, called Verdeen in Eastling, Dunhurst in Northland, Crête Sèche in Westmore, and Puy des Bergessis in Sudland, is 1234 m high.

Nor this:

• This mountain is 1234 m high.

But: How would you pick which one to put in the first sentence, and which three to relegate to the footnotes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this concrete example, but I don’t understand: what is the title of the article for this mountain? You need to choose one name for the title, and put everything else in a footnote. I may misunderstand something Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Cases with multiple equally official/local names are already covered by WP:MLN, which says that "the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory" and recommends choosing a single name "by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one," whether by looking at the linguistic majority, Google tests, or English usage. This seems to be the best approach as it prevents endless disputes over order and keeps the lead clean per MOS:LEADCLUTTER. Skitash (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the conclusion I came to in a recent WP:3O discussion about this question, but then it became irrelevant when I realized one of the languages wasn't really closely connected with the topic at all. Katzrockso (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that we're going to need more clarity as things stand. Indeed, the situation regarding two local languages ​​or two official languages ​​is completely unaddressed. I believe I saw the city of Hebron mentioned earlier; there's also the example of Arabic/Kurdish or Arabic/Berber bilingualism, which is a case that arises.

Curiously, it's almost always Arabic that's imposed, without any Wikipedia rule confirming this choice (for reasons and a claim of political and cultural preeminence that are anything but encyclopedic, by the way).

So, could we launch a call for comments to clarify the situation regarding two local or official languages ​​and not leave it to the discretion of a few contributors? It would therefore be helpful to clarify the possible options for submitting a RFC.

For example:

1) only allow the well-known English name and include a footnote listing all non-English local names;

or

2) allow the inclusion of at least two (or three) foreign names instead of just one for countries with two cultures/languages ​​or cross-border localities, and set a limit beyond which all names will be (equally) moved to a footnote if the page becomes too long. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

"we're going to need more clarity as things stand" This is already clarified at WP:MLN. There is no need for an RfC. Skitash (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:MLN concerns the article names, not the choice of what should be placed in MOS:LEDE.

Moreover, the argument you yourself cite is MOS:LEDE . Therefore, I repeat, nothing clearly defines the case of two local/official languages ​​and why one should be chosen over the other in the first sentence? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Depends on the so-called "official names". In the example that you cited (Algeria), only one of them is official, the other is "official on paper, but not integrated as an official language until it has been developed" (which will happen at some point in the future). M.Bitton (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:MLN clarify the title of the article not additional name Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:MLN and MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV are identical on multiple local names. Both overall messages are "pick one for the lead to avoid clutter" as per MOS:LEADCLUTTER, even if MLN's under naming conventions and FOREIGNEQUIV's in MOS. Skitash (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Only an RFC could clarify the rule and specify things; there are multiple cases that are not satisfied (I still see a section opening at the bottom for Native Americans). The rule of only one foreign noun (equivalent or local) in addition to English is not suitable. But I would like us to have some proposals before launching an RFC. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

RFCs are not the only way to clarify anything.

It looks like, from the recent comments above, the answer to multi-named article topics is to choose the Wikipedia:Article titles according to WP:MLN and then to choose the name in the first sentence according to the article title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

1) The problem isn't the name of article (in the case of the Maghreb, for example, it's well-defined in European languages).

2) The problem lies with the alternative names (two local and official languages in Algeria and Morocco : Arabic and Berber) in the lead sentence. It seems to me that the logical approach would have been to keep the English name (we're working on an English-language project) and treat the local names equally in a footnote. If you tell me that this interpretation is self-evident and that an RFC isn't necessary, that's fine with me. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the correct interpretation, it is not obvious and should be clarify. This is the purpose of this thread and I don’t think a RFC is needed. The consensus here is quite clear I’ll Adda sentence in FOREIGNEQUIV. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you Monsieur Patillo (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

two local and official languages in Algeria... what you're suggesting doesn't apply to that specific example (as explained above). As always, the devil is in the details. M.Bitton (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Tamazight is a linguistic reality, inscribed on official buildings alongside Arabic. For example: , .

However, the argument you presented earlier (surely in good faith and unknowingly!) is directly derived from controversial and conspiratorial arguments. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This isn't the place for me to entertain your simplistic and misleading statements. Take them to the appropriate article and see what happens. M.Bitton (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not trying to deceive anyone. The arguments used come from the conspiracy theory book by Hafsa Kara-Mustapha,"Berbère de Sion ère du faux et mensonges d'États : essai", p.51-54, chapter : "Tamazight ou les questions sans réponse" the flawed argument about the three alphabets), or even the truncated quote from Dourrari—it's all there. You're probably unaware of this and acting in good faith, and I don't blame you, but this isn't an academic argument (even if she cherry-picks linguists to suit his purposes).

The book has been reviewed and debunked by Larbi Graine .

Take them to the appropriate article and see what happens. What do you mean? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Please make/repeat your case in the appropriate article (where the specifics will be addressed, again). M.Bitton (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

You yourself cite WP:MOSLANG to justify the removal of any Tamazight terms from the introductions . So we're in the right place... Monsieur Patillo (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Here's my current understanding:

1. Only one name/same name in all languages: Use it.
   • The English Mountain is 1234 m high.
   • Verdeen is mountain that is 1234 m high.
2. Two WP:DUE names: Give both.
   • The English Mountain, which is called Verdeen in Eastling, is 1234 m high.
3. Three or more WP:DUE names: It's a bit complicated.
   1. One is English, the others are equal: Use the English and footnote the rest.
      • The English Mountain is 1234 m high.
   2. None are English, all names are equal: Choose the article title according to WP:MLN. Use the article title in the first sentence and footnote the rest.
      • The Verdeen Mountain is 1234 m high.
   3. One is English, the others are unequal: If there is only one significant non-English name, give the English and the most significant name, and footnote the rest. If there are two or more significant non-English names, footnote all of them.
      • The English Mountain or Verdeen in Eastling is 1234 m high.
      • The English Mountain is 1234 m high.

Does that sound about right to everyone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, ma'am! It's perfect. Gawaon (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. My only concern with the above is the mention of the English names (the common names in English), which are covered by another guideline (WP:MLN), rather than MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV. Since I'm sure that I'm not the only visual learner, I will create a decision tree chart that I will upload for review either tomorrow or this weekend at the latest. M.Bitton (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is also what I understand. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gawaon, Largoplazo, M.Bitton, WhatamIdoing, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul, Monsieur Patillo, Skitash, Thincat, Katzrockso, and Markussep::

After the discussion above, I understood that there was a rough consensus that, when more than one non-English language is closely associated with the subject, all the non-English equivalents should usually be moved out of the first sentence and grouped in a footnote (or a "Names" section), rather than singling out one of them in the lead.

On that basis, I went ahead and added the following clarification to MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, but it was reverted:

"When more than one non-English language is closely associated with the subject, the lead sentence should normally not single out one of them. In such cases, all non-English equivalents should be placed together in a single explanatory footnote (or in a 'Names' section or similar), rather than in the text of the first sentence, in order to avoid clutter and disputes over which language to feature."

Before doing anything further, could you please indicate whether I misread the outcome of this thread, or whether you would support restoring this clarification (with any copy-editing that may be needed)?Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing's proposal and Michael Boutboul's explanations. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a perfectly fine explanation to add, to me. Katzrockso (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like a fine wording to me too. I don't know why it was reverted, considering that we seem to have consensus here. Gawaon (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It was reverted because it's too simplistic, inflexible and contradicted by the Brussels example (mentioned above). In any case, I don't see the point of editing the guideline while we're in the middle of discussing our understanding of what we already have. The decision tree that I mentioned above will be uploaded shortly. M.Bitton (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

On the general point of editing while we're in the middle of discussing: Because it's actually recommended by WP:BRD. I particularly recommend its WP:NOTSTUCK section for your attention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It appears you are more skilled in this field than I am, what do you suggest we do to move forward and clarify the rules? Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. The current system already works perfectly. This proposal would actually create false balance, as not every "non-English equivalent" is equally "closely associated" with a place. This could potentially spark disputes over the ordering in the footnote, as editor will now fight over which language gets listed first or second. Ordering them is inherently subjective. That's precisely why WP:MLN (very similar but can definitely apply here) tells us to pick one name by objective criteria (English usage, linguistic majority, common name, etc.) instead of giving multiple languages equal billing. Skitash (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

If it were that obvious, we wouldn't need to discuss how to understand the rules here Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It appears you are now the only one here who disagrees with unconvincing arguments; consensus is not unanimity. Please do not revert the change again Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The current system is completely dysfunctional. But if some people try to obstruct the new proposal, a simple RFC will suffice to resolve the issue. The modifications proposed by @WhatamIdoing and @Boutboul are quite consensual and sensible. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It is done, no need for an RfC. Thank you Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't been following, hence the delay (I didn't have the main page bookmarked :( ). It's perfect. Sorry about the notification. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Here's the decision tree that I mentioned. It's just a draft at the moment, so comments and suggestions for improvements are welcome. M.Bitton (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Brussels moves all non-English names into a footnote, following the reverted text and WhatamIdoing's summary comment above perfectly, as far as I can see. Your flow chart, nice as it is, has some problems, such as claiming that it's sometimes OK to include two non-English names in the lead sentence (hence three in total), which is not what we have discussed and would lead to clutter. "One more closely associated than others" is also a can of worms we'll want to stay away from – establishing close association as such may be be hard enough already, and should be sufficient. Gawaon (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I followed the Brussels guideline (not the article) which says "In the first line, if the translations are to be mentioned, follow the sequence French–Dutch". The idea was to allow some flexibility, but I have no issue with removing it.

I mentioned "one more closely associated than others" because the guideline insists on having a single non-English name, but that also can be removed. Other than that, what other improvements would you suggest? M.Bitton (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The diagram is incorrect; its very usefulness is questionable.

Furthermore, the initial proposal needs clarification on what "significant" means. Should it be understood as "attested in a secondary source"? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

That's not very helpful. Please be specific about the problems that you see in the chart and make suggestions on how you'd address them. M.Bitton (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

To formulate a comprehensive proposal, I need clarification on what "significant" means (otherwise, we're just shifting the problem from one project to another, each defending its name or language as being more significant than the others). We therefore need to define a minimum scope. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

That's another issue. Can we please concentrate on the chart for now? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion between two people, nor is it about the graph (which is your unilateral initiative). Besides, wouldn't that be the role of WP :GRAPHLAB?

I remain interested in the clarifications provided by Michale Boutboul .

Your graph doesn't address Boutboul's clarifications, and it add something that wasn't in the proposal (You may include both Non-English names in the lead sentence, unless they are lengthy **) but which remains interesting (if the other contributors agree). Furthermore, I would like to let others clarify what the term "significant" means to them. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

This particular thread is about the graph. Please read my reply to what was suggested above and feel free to suggest something else. M.Bitton (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Once again, the graphic is your unilateral initiative , it's not my concern.

I prefer to stick to the consensus that was agreed upon . I therefore support, as it stands, the restoration of Michael Boutboul's edit. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Stick with whatever you want, but can you please give others the chance to comment on the chart? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The chart is entirely irrelevant to the question that was posed here. These are two different things:

# Besides the article's title, are their non-English equivalents that are "closely associated" or WP:DUE (or other such language) that merit mention in the lead?

# Given some number of non-English equivalents sufficiently associated to merit mention in the lead, should they be placed directly in the lead or in a footnote or some combination of both?

The original question was about the second of these: how to present the information when there are some number of closely associated items. Whether an equivalent is "closely associated" is a determination to be made before we get to the matter of how to present the items that that determination yielded. You're still trying to shift the focus to that. Largoplazo (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

My proposal for improvement is to simply return to the summary posted by WhatamIdoing above. It captures everything for which there's wide agreement here well enough and is largely in agreement with current practice, merely clarifying some details. Your additional rules are just unnecessary complications, not improvements. Gawaon (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This sentence, “one more closely associated than others”, will lead to the endless discussion that we want to avoid. That’s why I’d prefer to keep it simple. Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I already said that I will remove it. Do you have any other suggestions on how to improve the chart? M.Bitton (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I have several concerns:

• If you remove this sentence, what will you replace it with? A large part of your chart relies on this decision box. What does it mean to remove this sentence?
• If there is a local consensus to have two or more non-English names, I have no problem with that, but as soon as there is a dispute between editors, the rule should be simple and we should put everything in a footnote.
• I doubt this kind of chart is necessary if we remove those decision boxes.

Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Boutboul Exactly. On the other hand, the diagram introduced in a contradictory manner (and not present in the WhatamIdoing summary): You may include both Non-English names in the lead sentence, unless they are lengthy **) . This could be an interesting alternative between polite people, but in the hierarchy, the Is one of the non-English language names more closely associated with the subject than the others? and "*Close association will have to be determined through discussion." make me very pessimistic and believe it will lead to unfair and non-neutral treatment. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Disputes will have to be resolved through discussion no matter what we say on this page.

I'm sure that there are good reasons to be pessimistic. There are, after all, reasons to think that people will say "We should list them alphabetically" when their preferred name happens to be early in the alphabet, but "We should list them according to population" when they think they will gain an advantage that way. But I don't think that is any better or worse under any system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree, there are always ways to dispute things; however, I think (though I may be wrong) that it is less sensitive in a footnote than in the first line of the article. In my opinion, we need clear and simple rules to rely on in order to minimize disputes. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I updated the chart according to what was suggested by others (the older one can be seen here). Please let me know what you think. M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It is fine for me Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I am against the continued attempt to replace Three or more WP:DUE names: It's a bit complicated with closely associated; which is supposed to be determined by a so-called "discussion" (which is always extremely contentious on these topics). For the Maghreb and the Middle East, we can see the drift coming: the discussion will consist of saying that all minority languages ​​are insignificant and that only Arabic is significant, and this is just a potential gateway to POV-pushing. So we keep coming back to the same problem: the scheme completely disregards consensus and tries to impose another idea. Therefore, I disagree with it. Michael Boutboul's precision was more relevant and faithful to the spirit of what was discussed. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I crossed out my comment after @Largoplazo and @Monsieur Patillo explanations. Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm really confused now. What part of the chart do you disagree with and how is it irrelevant to the question (on how to deal with non-English names)? M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I was afraid, as others pointed out, that the sentence "The close association with the subject will have to be determined through discussion" was problematic, but after some reflection I think it is fine, I unstruck my comment. However, I do not understand the difference from my proposal and why some still consider that there is no consensus? Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton, could you explain what is the difference between my proposal and your chart and why there is no consensus yet, while we agree? Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I just struck out my comments about the chart. I must have looked at it really hastily the first time. Actually, I don't see any significant fault with it. I might tweak it to get rid of the implication that each language is itself limited to only one word. The real crux is the words, and the number of them, from languages other than English that are found "closely associated", not the number of languages that they're from. Largoplazo (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the one word implication is. I used "name", which as far as I know, is not limited to one word, but feel free to recommend any appropriate tweak.

I don't understand what you mean by "words and number of them". Do you have an example in mind? M.Bitton (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This advice is trying to solve several problems. One of them is WP:UNDUE additions of translations. The other is how long it takes to get to the end of the first sentence.

The first means that we don't want an article to begin this way, with a zillion of semi-random languages listed:

N "Paris (Arabic: باريس, Bulgarian: Париж, Czech: Paříž, Greek: Ελληνικά, Basque: Parizo, Spanish: París, Finnish: Pariisi, Hebrew: פריז, Hindi: पेरिस, Korean: 파리, Dutch: Parijs, Russian: Париж, Thai: ปารีส, Chinese: 巴黎, etc.) is a city in France."

The second means that we don't want an article to begin this way, even though there are only two languages here:

N "Dolores Hidalgo (Spanish: ^ⓘ; in full, Dolores Hidalgo Cuna de la Independencia Nacional, Mexican Spanish pronunciation: ; English translation: Dolores Hidalgo Birthplace of National Independence, US: /dəˈɫɔɹɪs həˈdæɫˌɡoʊ ˈbɝθˌpɫeɪs ˈəv ˈnæʃənəɫ, ˈnæʃnəɫ ˌɪndɪˈpɛndəns/, DOH-lor-ess EE-dal-go BIRTH-plās ov NASH-on-al IN-dee-PEN-dens) is a city in Mexico."

Note that the problem here isn't the number of translations/alternative names; it's purely the number of words shoved into the parentheses before you get to the end of the first sentence. We solve these problems with either omission:

Y "Paris is a city in France."

or by rearranging:

Y "Dolores Hidalgo (Spanish: ^ⓘ) is a city in Mexico. Because of its historic role in Mexican national independence, it is formally known as Dolores Hidalgo Cuna de la Independencia Nacional (English: Dolores Hidalgo, birthplace of national independence)."

Rearranging includes putting names in footnotes or other sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think part of what needs to be addressed is whether we actually want the "only one non-English name" rule. Consider, e.g.,:

• Gdańsk (Kashubian: Gduńsk; German: Danzig) is a city.

That's three languages: Polish (which happens to be the current English common name), a local ethnic minority language, and German (which happens to be the previous English common name). Do we really want to footnote one or both of those names? If we footnote only one, it will be the local ethnic minority language. Do we want to have a systematic bias against local languages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Moving them both to a note would be the logical outcome of this discussion, it seems to me. I don't think that would be bad. Gawaon (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Moving the only name that many older readers will recognize (i.e., the "former" English-language name, which still seems to get used slightly more than half the time) to a footnote is not a sensible outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Danzig should be mentioned in the lead as a significant English, not German name. But nationalist editors repeatedly revert any attempt at adding it. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with you. Danzig was used as the English name before World War II, but that is no longer the case; all major newspapers and scholarly articles now use Gdansk. I have nothing against the German language and I understand this can be frustrating, but WP:EN reflects current usage in English. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Danzig is used in English to refer to the city historically. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

So you mean adding in the footnote that Danzig was used as an english name before WWII? Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I mean adding it to the lead like with Ceylon, Burma, and many other places. Why should an English name be relegated to a footnote? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, the issue here is the English name (WP:MLN), not the non-English names (MOS:FOREIGN). The title of the article should be 'Gdansk', not 'Gdańsk', which is Polish. All major English-language newspapers (NYT, WaPo, The Guardian, AP, etc.) use 'Gdansk'. Quebec, Mexico, Zurich, Vietnam are titled like that on English Wikipedia, not Québec, México, Zürich nor Việt Nam; there is no reason to make it different for Gdansk. The non-English names should then be placed in a footnote (Gdańsk, Danzig and Gduńsk). Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

In this case, a more flexible approach could be considered for pages with two foreign names where this works well, such as Gdańsk, and where one of the foreign names is relevant (without disadvantaging the second foreign name, which would have less relevance/be more of a minority).

Two names:

• If there is agreement/no objection, the format English name + two foreign names can be used.
• If there is disagreement: English name + footnote for both foreign names.

Three or more names:

• For three or more names: footnote

Monsieur Patillo (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, one could consider that two names are accepted automatically (which is common practice on many projects) and that footnotes should only be added with three names. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

In this case, there are three foreign-language names – Gdańsk, Danzig and Gduńsk – not two. I have no problem with local consensus, but in my opinion this should not be written into the guideline, which should be kept simple and not leave room for interpretation, otherwise it will lead to never-ending discussion. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the case, actually. It seemed to me that this was a case involving two local (non-English) names. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why Michael Boutboul's edit was cancelled; it seems to have been consensual. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single equivalent name in another language may be included in the lead sentence". There has been much contention over the years on whether or not local Native Americans/First Nations (or other Indigenous minority communities) and their languages are closely-associated to articles about places, including both modern settlements and natural features.
Please forgive me if I added the wrong categories, this is my first RFC.

1. Can minority native languages be closely related to articles about places? What determines "close association"?
2. Can a reliably-sourced name belonging to a minority native language be used as the foreign equivalent? PersusjCP (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather we have no non-english names in leads. This is suppose to be the English Wikipedia, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Articles on English Wikipedia present information about their subjects. What a country is called in its own primary language(s) is a singularly valuable piece of information about the country, don't you think? Largoplazo (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree first language would be very relevant. Moxy🍁 23:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

IMHO, they're irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Are these Indigenous languages the majority language spoken in these regions? As in official/defacto/dominant name (first language - the main language that people use in a region or country)? Or are you asking we just add random Indigenous names that are a modern translation? Moxy🍁 22:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Calling any language other than the majority "random" seems a bit like missing the point here. Obviously I don't think every name under the sun should be added, and I don't know why you think I said that. PersusjCP (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Let me reword this... are you asking to add the first language (native language) or Indigenous languages? Because there's real confusion that Americans seem to believe native language means Indigenous language. Moxy🍁 22:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "confusion among Americans." Native is widely accepted to hold the meaning "Indigenous to a place". I also specified that I was talking about minority Indigenous languages. Calling it a "confusion" muddies the water of what is being discussed. PersusjCP (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this is where we have the confusion.....we should have called these parameters and templates first languages decades ago Template:Native name.. Only Americans use the term "native" when referring to an ethnicity. The rest of the English world uses native as a qualifier "the flower is native to the region" or in a human context "they are a native New Yorker", nothing to do with being indigenous (the English word use for humans by the vast majority of the English speaking world) Native Language -Social Sciences. Moxy🍁 23:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I linked several dictionary definitions that say otherwise. I don't know why you're saying it's an exclusively American thing. There are two ways to interpret "native language": as a "native language" i.e. a first language, or as a "native" + "language," a language Indigenous to a place or belonging to an Indigenous people. This is why I clarified throughout the entire request that this is about minority Indigenous languages. Totally beside the point anyhow PersusjCP (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I am saying "native language" (as two words put together) to most of the English world including academic circles means "first language" that may be Indigenous in nature but the vast majority of time is not. Moxy🍁 23:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay. It's still beside the point. This discussion is about minority Indigenous langugages which I said. PersusjCP (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Then yes as the RFC you linked below has established..... if there are sources establishing their wide usage and a consensus to do so we have been adding them to infoboxes.... and in some cases to the lead sentence in a "note" (most try to avoid this as they believe it hides things thus an accessibility concern) as outlined at MOS:LEADCLUTTER. i.e Nova Scotia Moxy🍁 23:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Many articles on places outside of North America include minority Indigenous languages, and I can't fathom why it should be any different in North America. It was also decided at Template talk:Infobox_settlement/Archive_32#h-RFC_on_usage_of_native_name_parameter_for_First_Nations_placenames-20230513102200 several years ago that First Nations/Native American-language names can be included in the infobox as the native name even while minorities, which while not entirely the same, is a related concept and worth considering. I think it's fair to extend that usage to LEADLANG where applicable. PersusjCP (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good RFC. This is something that should be considered on a case-by-case basis. See the discussion at Halifax, Nova Scotia for an example. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There's a big issue with the erasure of Native history on this site so I'm not surprised at the replies.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 04:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This RfC is in response to this discussion at Langley, Washington, where—because Langley "was a camping spot used during clam harvesting in the summer months"—this editor wanted an Indigenous name added to the first sentence of the article. I found it a bit of an overreach. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not that, it's the repeated discussions we have had over the years. YOU asked me to find consensus, so I am. PersusjCP (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RFC. We have a standard already: its when a language is closely associated with the subject. The best way to demonstrate this is with reliable sources. This is just an individual dispute best solved via regular consensus building and doesn't require an RFC to dictate sitewide policy on this matter. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'll withdraw. PersusjCP (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  The OP has withdrawn the RFC, but I would like to very gently discourage "Bad RFC" responses, especially when the meaning is unnecessary rather than malformed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what it's like with French Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, etc. But on English Wikipedia, it seems there's no limits to adding other language names. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• I like the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Alternative names: "other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternative names can be mentioned in the first line of the article". I don't think we should default to inclusion of Indigenous names, but I support a mention if they're reasonably common in reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

'As editors are often unaware of this guideline, good faith should be assumed when tags are added to lead sections sometimes erroneously. can be added to article leads that often attract unwarranted tags.'

This sounds as if the guidelines says that there should be no citations in the lede. In fact, the guideline says that 'The presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article,' and 'there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.' So I see no basis for referring to editors' addition of citation needed tags as 'erroneous' at all. ~2025-38000-28 (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It is erroneous, as the section says, when no citation is actually needed because citation for the statements in question can be found in the body. As editors may not know this, good faith is to be assumed. The mentioned editorial consensus refers, I think, to the question whether some particularly controversial or otherwise often challenged statements should be referenced in the lead despite also being referenced in the body. In my understanding, editorial (talk page) consensus cannot come to conclusions such as "the lead of this article must be fully referenced as if there was no body where references can be found", as that would be a WP:CONLEVEL violation. Gawaon (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)