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 articles on buildings, stadiums, venues, monuments, and other physical structures, the location should be stated in the first sentence of the lead. Generally, this should be the most specific or notable municipal or governmental division and country, corresponding to the naming conventions for geographic places:
For articles on buildings, venues, monuments, and other physical structures, the location—city, administrative region (if appropriate), and country—should be stated in the first sentence of the lead:
Right now, there is a lack of clarity on whether "United States" should be added to American municipalities, which typically are written as "CITY, STATE", such as "Milwaukee, Wisconsin". The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) clarifies the naming convention for US cities (WP:USPLACE), but there doesn't appear to be clarity on whether "United States" should be added after the "CITY, STATE" (i.e. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States), specifically in the lead sentence to serve Wikipedia's broad audience. Take for example the difference between Lambeau Field and MetLife Stadium, two NFL stadiums in America, one of which only has the "CITY, STATE", while the other includes "CITY, STATE, United States". Unfortunately, the addition of "United States" is not common vernacular, but this may be from a limited worldview.
Clarifying that this should be included will help provide justification for its use, which likely runs counter to how many American editors/readers are used to seeing a placetype written and would help avoid content disputes. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 22:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is strictly necessary but if you'd find it clarifying I have no objection to including it. However, I'd suggest simplifying the first two sentences to "For articles on buildings, venues, monuments, and other physical structures, the location (city, administrative region, and country) should be stated in the first sentence of the lead". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One minor issue, however, is that there aren't always administrative regions sufficiently relevant to include – e.g "Paris, France" and "Hamburg, Germany" are perfectly fine without a region. Gawaon (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gawaon this is why I included the most specific or notable, to give some leeway that the most specific may not be the most appropriate. Happy to entertain text changes to make anything clearer. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 14:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this looks fine now, except that "MUNICIPALITY, STATE" in capital letters is a bit odd – maybe use italics (or at least small caps) instead? Gawaon (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the article to see what you mean. I don't think the problem is Paris, France. I think that opening sentence should be two (or even 3) sentences. Put a period after "France" and add a subject/verb to "1.9 kilometres (1.2 mi) long and 70 metres (230 ft) wide, running between the Place de la Concorde in the east and the Place Charles de Gaulle in the west, where the Arc de Triomphe is located" and it would be easier to read. Schazjmd(talk)23:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I wasn't really considering streets, roads, public transit lines, etc. I was thinking things that would be covered as "points on map", not "lines on a map". I don't think Champs-Élysées provides any real example of what I have proposed above. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 23:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so, but it is certain that editors are going to interpret "physical structures" to cover other topics. For example, a man-made tunnel, bridge, or canal. I think my preference would be to specify the location within the first paragraph. Praemonitus (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just fyi, I revised the lead sentence in that article. Here is the version that was commented on above: [1]. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 23:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need see the need for this. An informal region is sometimes more accurate and better off used than an administrative region. It seems like unnecessary instruction creep to me looking for a solution to a non-existent problem. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal has no exceptions in its stated requirement to name city and country. I wonder what it intends for structures for which a separate country name would not be meaningful (Colossus of Rhodes, destroyed long before the creation of the country now containing its present location), for structures in places that are not in any city, country, or administrative unit (McMurdo Station), or for structures that are in a country but not in a city (Hoover Dam). It all seems overly WP:CREEPy, prescriptive, and unimaginative of the possible variation that actual structural locations can have. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see the need for this proposal. Following the guidelines it'd suggest we use the regions of England as opposed to the ceremonial counties, despite the latter being more precise and recognisable. Most features aren't even located within a city either which is an odd choice of wording. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section located "before the table of contents"?
How is the lead section located "before the table of contents" as claimed here (its project page)? The table of contents is on the left and there is nothing under it on any Wikipedia article. 46.114.166.175 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was written years ago, when the Table of Contents wasn't on the side. Here are some links if you'd like to see some of the options:
Thank you. Could the definition be updated / rewritten so it reflects the layout change? I was reading the One-time pad article and there is a notice there about its lead section containing information not found anywhere else in the article.
I got curious what the lead section is, but the definition, per your reply, is outdated. Is "History" in that article the first heading, making everything above it lead section? 46.114.166.175 (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Chestnut sparrow, the first section is called "Taxonomy and systematics". The lead is the paragraph above that. (That article has a one-paragraph lead; others are longer.) On this guideline page, the first section is called "Elements and order", and the lead is the four paragraphs above that section heading.
Removing synonyms from "First sentence" and mentioning synonyms in following sentences
Hi, for example in
In machine learning, a neural network (also artificial neural network or neural net, abbreviated ANN or NN) is a computational model inspired by the structure and functions of biological neural networks.
The synonyms section "artificial neural network or neural net, abbreviated ANN or NN" reduces readability of article. So I propose to place them in the next sentences or in footnote.
Something like:
In machine learning, a neural network is a computational model inspired by the structure and functions of biological neural networks. It is also known as artificial neural network or neural net, abbreviated ANN or NN.
Or
In machine learning, a neural network[a] is a computational model inspired by the structure and functions of biological neural networks.
^also artificial neural network or neural net, abbreviated ANN or NN
