User talk:LocalNet/Archives/2017/November
Reverted my edit on iOS[edit]
Hello,
I was reading the page and noticed a great absence of citations backing up data and statistical claims. I done the research with reliable sources such as research firms and added them to the page. You then resorted to revert my edit. May I ask why? I read the page which you linked me, which I thank you for, but I figured that there was a lack of citations and that there should be some to back up the claims. Aviartm (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello @Aviartm: Thanks for the message! I am assuming we are talking about iOS, right? Please note that information above the table of contents is known as the WP:LEAD, a place to summarize an article's most important points. Therefore, anything written in the lead is pretty much a repeat of the article, and should ideally be explained in more detail with reliable sources in the relevant sections. Unless information is difficult to find in the article or the subject matter is very controversial, it is not necessary to have citations in the lead. I do want to thank you, however, for providing sources. Even if it wasn't necessary in this particular case, it's always great to have someone on Wikipedia who's willing to do the task of finding citations, so please note that this is not a reversion based on your overall efforts (keep finding sources for articles missing it!) but rather for this one specific case. LocalNet (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ohh! I see. Now as I think about it, I do not see or hardly see citations in the lead. Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification! :) Also, what does Wikipedia or the community classify as the "lead"? In this case with the iOS page, it is all of the paragraphs above before "History"? Thanks again for your kindness and insights! Aviartm (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Aviartm: You're welcome :) Yes, in the case of iOS, the text above History is the lead. The easiest way to determine the lead in any given article is to look for a box featuring the text "Contents". That box always goes right after the lead, unless an article is so short there literally aren't any sections in it (very rare). The contents box will list all the sections ("body") of an article, so everything above the contents box is the lead ("intro"). So, for example, in iOS 11, everything above "History" is the lead, whereas in Apple Store, everything above "Description" is the lead, and on an entirely different topic, in Modern Family, the text above "Premise" is the lead. Always look for the contents box. :) LocalNet (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Aviartm: Ah, yes indeed! I believe the difference may be due to the editor(s) of the Ray Kroc article simply wanting citations in the lead. Or they may perhaps not even be aware of that policy, but don't quote that as a definite answer. The WP:LEADCITE guideline offers flexibility ("The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.") When I was starting to edit Wikipedia, I used to add sources in the lead myself, only stopping when I learned about WP:LEADCITE. Obviously the reason for the citations is just speculation on my end, though, but some articles do feature them, and others don't. That's one of the few policies allowing for such flexibility. LocalNet (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Apple Store[edit]
Thanks for the support. Cheers Tiger7253 (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)