This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lead too short template. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
We have two distinct templates, but they say pretty much the same thing:
Lead too short: "This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents."
Inadequate lead: "This article's lead section may not adequately summarize its contents."
I'm surprised and confused. They're saying the same thing! Per the documentation, use {{ Lead too short}} "where the lead section is much shorter than what is recommended, relative to the length of the article." It specifically states "If the lead fails to provide an adequate summary of the article's key points, without necessarily being too short, use the template {{Inadequate lead}} instead." Likewise, "Place {{Inadequate lead|date=September 2020}} at the top of articles where the lead section fails to adequately summarize the article." and "If the lead is simply too short relative to the length of the article, use the template {{Lead too short}} instead."
I suggest the text of {{ Lead too short}} is changed to be much more specific about the tagging editor's reason. The template message needs to be meaningfully differentiated from {{ Inadequate lead}}. We should not need to find the template's name in the edit window just to understand which template is used.
Perhaps from
to
The change is in the first sentence.
CapnZapp ( talk) 16:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the first sentence FROM
TO
See talk page discussion. Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 08:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. All of these proposed alternatives have grammatical problems or ambiguity that make them inferior to the current version. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 13:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
If the problem this template identifies is that the lead is too short, the first sentence in the template's language should say that clearly. I think this template's contents could benefit from reworking, rather than small tweaks. Here's the current language:
This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. (
|reason=
goes here, preceded by "The reason given is:") Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page (linked). Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (October 2020)
I propose that we:
|talk=
was added, and appears even when |talk=
is not used; |talk=
was used in exactly one article, as of October 1)I think something like this would be more clear:
This article's lead section needs to be expanded so that it adequately summarizes the article's key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (if reason=, add "The following issue(s) may need to be addressed: (
|reason=
goes here.") Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page (linked). (October 2020)
I am not wedded to any of this language, but if this template's fate is not to be merged, it should do what it says on the tin. Suggestions? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Jonesey95: what on Earth: the problem was never with this template, but with the other ones. @ CapnZapp: you didn't bother notifying anyone about this request. I'll be reverting this completely unnecessary change (which elides the actual problem that we were supposed to be addressing) very shortly if there isn't an exceptionally good reason not to. And for what it's worth, the reason that templates with over eight thousand transclusions are frequently protected is not to trample on everyone's free speech, but rather so that conversations between two editors lasting a grand total of ten hours do not go casually breaking years of consensus on how our articles should be written. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 01:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
the specific (and technical) fact "there aren't enough lead paragraphs to conform to recommendations"
I broadly agree with this plan, even if I think it's been rather overthought. What it boils down to is minor updates to {{ lead too short}} and {{ lead rewrite}} which obviate the need for the third one. Fewer, better templates make life easier for editors. And I say this as someone who spends far more time than most on lead sections.
Chris, when a user like me sees a 30K article with only a two paragraph lead, we go "the lead is too short". We then apply the template called {{ Lead too short}}, expecting this template to say "the lead is too short".
What we do not expect is the template saying something confusingly similar to what {{ inadequate lead}} says, namely that the lead section doesn't adequately summarize its contents. Had I wanted to post a cleanup tag that said something about the inadequate lead, I would have looked for a template called, I don't know, something like "inadequate lead".
This is the issue I attempted to address. Nothing sinister, no conspiracy. Just an honest attempt at a better Wikipedia.
You say There is no prerogative for a lead which adequately summarises an article to be enlarged simply because it is short
as if that was a fact, but you're expressing personal opinion, no? The documentation clearly states
"Place Lead too short at the top of articles where the lead section is much shorter than what is recommended, relative to the length of the article. The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. If the lead fails to provide an adequate summary of the article's key points, without necessarily being too short, use the template Inadequate lead instead." MOS:LEADLENGTH says "The following suggestions about lead length may be useful".
Everything points to this very template being intended to be used specifically when the lead length diverges from our Manual of Style. Except you barge in and accuse people of "neuterising this part of the MOS". I can't even begin to imagine what parts of the MOS I have "neutered"!
You then refer to a very long and very confused TfD that jumbles together three templates into one mess of a discussion. Besides, it ended in no consensus, so I'm not going to apologize for not studying it in detail. You'll have to summarize its talking points that you believe pertains to this template on this talk page. Editors have had twenty (20) days to voice their objections. I see zero reasons why our edit must be so speedily reverted that no discussion can be allowed to take place first. It's as if we broke Wikipedia or something...
I don't understand what you want this template's function to be, and how you envision it as distinct from {{ inadequate lead}}. I am not convinced you're speaking for us all when clearly there are lots of different positions here. What are your reasons for reverting this template to use the "This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents" language when you could just use {{ inadequate lead}} which already says as much? I will have to ask you to take it from the start if you wish to keep contesting our work. CapnZapp ( talk) 18:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
when a user like me sees a 30K article with only a two paragraph lead, we go "the lead is too short". We then apply the template called {{ Lead too short}}, expecting this template to say "the lead is too short".
You have 1. Reverted our work and 2. Keep ignoring the concerns and requests to engage on specified aspects of the question and 3. Ignore other suggestions than your own! Now you have the gall to characterize your own actions as having addressed the concerns (but only the small bits you yourself are interested in) and then appear to single-handled conclude the discussion with a very patronizing "leaving things as-is is a perfectly acceptable outcome". YOU are the only one contesting our edit, yet you keep talking as if you represent more editors than yourself! You refer to your favorite bits of badly organized AfDs as some kind of unchangeable consensus in a way I find entirely inappropriate, even claiming you have done something when it was struck down and not implemented?!?! Hint: it is our discussion here and now that's supposed to build the consensus! Like a true gatekeeper you come here to tell others what the consensus is instead of participating in a consensus-building discussion. It's as if consensus is some unwritten law that doesn't even have to be discussed, much less questioned. For probably the fourth time, you have belittled our work as bad faith and insinuated we're discussing in the wrong place, yet I see zero suggestions from you where better to have this discussion.
Template protection means I can't start a regular BRD cycle which forces people to either explain their reverts or accept the changes. I shouldn't have to start (yet another) AfD simply to get around your personal disinterest in listening to other viewpoints than your own, chiefly because it shifts the focus and the burden of evidence in a way that favors stagnation over constructive progress, but it appears you leave us with no other choice, since this discussion is getting absolutely nowhere - you have not shown even an inch of will to compromise or entertain alternative solutions as far as I can see, and spend your replies mostly coming up with varying ways to tell me to accept your position as inevitable and "perfectly acceptable". It's close to impossible to have a civil discussion with such an editor. CapnZapp ( talk) 16:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The big problem here () is that there has been far too little community input on a very widely visible change.is proof of that, since I take that to mean "I have unilaterally decided silence doesn't mean consensus for the change in this case, instead I'm setting an arbitrarily high threshold for approving your changes". If you have even a shred of self-awareness you would recuse yourself from the discussion (don't worry, the protection means I can't "sneak" anything under your "radar" /s) and maybe ask an uninvolved colleague to take over for you by having a look at the discussion (at least the now-small part at the top before your arrival when the discussion was still constructive). CapnZapp ( talk) 09:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
You barged in here immediately making it clear you think we acted in bad faith
You also claim to speak for "years of consensus". You keep making my issue invisible
If you have even a shred of self-awareness you would recuse yourself from the discussion
I give up. Your invitation to discussion is entirely rank and stale - you showed clearly your bias with your very first edits. You are simply not neutral and I don't intend to discuss further with you, uninvolved editors is needed at this point.
I can't fight an administrator misusing his powers, clearly confusing his own views for "consensus". Also note how after repeated prodding he continues to ignore the fact he barged in here throwing insults around, insults he refuses to tack back or apologize for. Textbook bad faith. He refuses to actually discuss consensus with an open mind, rather only referring to "it" (not an existing current discussion mind you, but "thirteen years of consensus" as if me reading through years-old cruft is sensible, and as if consensus can't change?) In fact, it appeared consensus HAD CHANGED until Thumperward single-handedly decided it no longer had (providing no evidence, except "you just have to take my word for it, I know better than you"). Why would I want to discuss thirteen year old threads, when an AfD from just six months ago makes it abundantly clear there is no such thing as consensus here. It's time for somebody else to take a look at thumperward's gatekeeping actions here. Ping me, since I won't be monitoring this page. CapnZapp ( talk) 16:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Now that the template's message reflects its intended function and usage ( #Refined proposal), it's time to ask the big question:
Is this is a message for readers or editors? I can see the argument for keeping this template's output as is, but moving it from being an article cleanup template to a article talk page template. As I see it, noting that the lead is too short compared to our internal guidelines is somewhat akin to the {{ Picture requested}} template. It comments upon the article quality in a way useful to editors, but in a way that maybe need not distract its readers? CapnZapp ( talk) 08:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
It’s insane to warn a user that the lede is too short.,
Is this garbage template active on any mainspace page in English WP?,
Instead, it's purpose seems to be to shame editors who create or support the article into improving it, by applying this bird shit template at the top of the article., and so on (all from our Talk archive). CapnZapp ( talk) 17:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
so this notice serves to inform the editors, rather than the readers. That is, I do not fully agree with your comparison to a template such as {{ primary sources}}. Sure, there's a message to editors in there "make the article less reliant on primary sources" but there's a clear warning to readers too: "since this article relies on primary sources, be wary of what it says". The same with {{ cleanup-PR}} - we're acknowledging that we might be selling it too hard and that until the article can be rewritten to be more neutral, readers should take it with a grain of salt and not eat it up uncritically. That aspect is lacking here - I simply don't see how a reader can be adversely affected by the lead being "too short". No reader needs to be told "this article starts with just one paragraph instead of three". That's why I made the {{ Image requested}} comparison. The reader does not need to be told "Warning! This article lacks a picture" since, sure, the article might be better with one, but it's not that the reader needs to be on heightened alert just because one isn't there. CapnZapp ( talk) 17:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I've skimmed the last TfD ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_13#Template:Inadequate_lead), and man, is it a poster boy of how to set up a TfD you want to end in no consensus.
To me this template is exceedingly simple. The rules recommendations state a number of paragraphs per article size. So it's really not even a matter of "too short". It literally is about too few paragraphs! When a lead is too short has too few paragraphs, we use this template to inform editors of this fact. That's it. Nothing else is assumed or implied. The article could have a brilliant lead that's just one big paragraph and thus be very adequate, but too short paragraph-deficient. So the template is directed towards editors, not readers. It's just an internal note "we're not following the rules guidelines here". If the reader needs to be made aware, the lead is inadequate, not simply too short.
When you indicate your level of disappointment in the existing lead, on the other hand, rather than lacking in numerical impressiveness, this can be info useful to a reader as well as an editor - like many other article space cleanup templates. I must confess I don't need more than one such template if you ask me.
My ideal outcome would be for this template to live in talk space, and a single "this lead isn't good enough" template to cover all article space related needs. CapnZapp ( talk) 22:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This template is currently used to indicate all kinds of inadequate lead sections, and the separation from {{ inadequate lead}} is unclear - the messages are nearly identical.
I propose we use this template specifically when the lead section is too short (given MOS:LEADLENGTH), and use {{ inadequate lead}} or {{ rewrite lead}} for more general cleanup problems related to the lead section. CapnZapp ( talk) 11:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Please note
User:Thumperward presents his personal opinion as if it were fact. Please do not call me names or suggest my view is in the minority, Chris - this RfC is what will determine that. (Editors are invited to peruse the above previous discussion!). In reality, his proposed solution has failed to gain any traction, and sidetracking this discussion is precisely what I cautioned against. Sure {{
Lead too short}} and {{
inadequate lead}} are the same thing
but that does not necessarily mean they should be merged - this RfC is asking if it isn't better to uncouple them altogether - to give them different jobs (and phrasings). The advantage of this approach is not only to handle the real need to indicate a short lead, but mainly that we can make actual progress instead of (yet again) getting bogged down in no consensus. Once it's clear one approach is blocked (such as with the recent TfD), choosing another path might be best - and this RfC is asking exactly that question. Should this RfC agree to let {{
Lead too short}} focus on, well, leads that are too short, we can then move on to discuss whether we need two (or one or even zero) general "improve the lead" templates. This way we would take a step forward. Regards,
CapnZapp (
talk) 10:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
A short lead vs. a bad lead are two distinct things, and it makes sense to have one template for each and I support rephrasing to make that clearer.I completely agree, User:Sdkb. However, if you peruse the previous discussion (above) you'll see that User:Thumperward unilaterally blocked this, even reverting the progress that was made (all the while spewing baseless insults). Hopefully this Request for Comment ends more constructively. Cheers, CapnZapp ( talk) 11:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, for the sake of being productive, I have compiled a matrix showing length against adequacy, and what templates we have.
Top: length Left: adequacy |
Less than prescribed | As prescribed | More than prescribed |
---|---|---|---|
Does not summarise | {{ lead too short}} / {{ inadequate lead}} | {{ lead rewrite}} / {{ inadequate lead}} | {{ lead rewrite}} |
Summarises | This cannot happen! | Hurrah! | {{ lead too long}} |
As you can see, {{ inadequate lead}} is always superfluous to a different, more detailed template. Its relative usage next to e.g. {{ lead too short}} shows that users understand the latter better and use it in preference. Meanwhile, the alleged issue of leads which fail a certain word count and yet still adequately summarise an article does not exist, because this isn't how summaries work.
The reason to continue to call the template {{ lead too short}} and use the present wording is because the relationship between symptom and disease is quite close, and yet not entirely overlapping. You can't solely fix adequacy by adding words, and yet adding words is always going to be required.
For the avoidance of doubt, the reason the MOS prescribes suggested length is because experience has shown this to be a good rule of thumb, and that's it. The factors that are really important is that it is a) sufficiency comprehensive and b) still a summary and not something else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 10:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Lead too short | {{ lead too short}} |
---|---|
Lead just right | Hurrah! |
Lead too long | {{ lead too long}} |
Lead is hopeless | {{ lead rewrite}} |
---|---|
Lead is inadequate | {{ inadequate lead}} |
Lead just right | Hurrah! |
Do compared the way each issue is phrased to the name of each template :)
In this RfC I am proposing getting the top of these two tables sorted out and done with, and then as a separate second step we can start a discussion around the merits and flaws of having two lead templates related to "summarizing power". The value lies in resolving the deadlock that was the recent Templates for Deletion discussion (link: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_13#Template:Inadequate_lead), where - at least in my view - it became clear that separating out the two "dimensions" instead of conflating them has real value. Cheers! CapnZapp ( talk) 13:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: I'm not entirely sure of best practices regarding RfC publication, but in the interest of getting more opinions, let me ping every participant of that TfD (except Chris who's already here): @ SUM1, Plastikspork, Rich Farmbrough, FrummerThanThou, Marokwitz, Funandtrvl, Dominic Mayers, Pigsonthewing, Debresser, DeNoel, Nyttend, Jonesey95, Koafv, Soumya-8974, Dimadick, Tom (LT), Pyxis Solitary, Chiswick Chap, Pi314m, MaxEnt, Hobbes Goodyear, and Francis Schonken: CapnZapp ( talk) 14:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
In looking up the transclusions, they are as follows:
According to the usage above, Template:lead too short is the most used. I would keep it, and then merge template:improve lead to template:lead rewrite. Users seem to like defining leads by length, so why fight it?
I have been pinged due to an observation I submitted 10 March 2020 in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 March 8#Template:Inadequate lead. I presently read {{ Improve lead}} as a lead that summarizes the article, but lacks information a reader would consider necessary. As before, I will use the Beyond Tomorrow (TV series) article as an example. At this time, the lead provides key details about the series, but fails to describe what the series is about: science fiction, science fact/technology, economics, political, philosophy? For this particular situation, if I did not have {{ Improve lead}} as an option, then I would opt for {{ Lead too short}}. This particular lead would not require {{ Lead rewrite}}.
It's handy to have a template which has the flexibility for situations in which none of the other templates would be appropriate—a lead can be fine in length and well written, but still missing key points (again, not requiring an entire rewrite). If templates are merged, then I suggest their new function be worded with flexibility in mind. Something will come up later that we hadn't considered when the templates were retooled. As they are right now, I'd say to not merge, but cleanup their descriptions so as to better define their function. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR ( talk) 08:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC).
Err, I'm not sure about changing the wording while the RfC is still open, based on 48 hours of discussion, but I can live with it.
I've made few additional minor tweaks to the sandbox which I hope slightly improve the flow while retaining the consensus to put length in the problem description. Is this okay with people? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 21:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Live version:
This article has multiple issues. Please help
improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page. (
Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Sandbox:
This article has multiple issues. Please help
improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page. (
Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Funandtrvl ( talk) 22:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
fix=
. With regards to bolding, there is a consistency across cleanup templates that the initial noun phrase ("this article", "this section") is not bolded. I admit that the issue here is ever-so-slightly different as the lead is intrinsic to the issue, but the MoS still recommends keeping bold to a minimum. You've added this back
before, but I think this should be kept in line with other templates. I've updated the sandbox again.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk) 15:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)According to MOS:LEADSTUB, a stub article does not require a lead. Because obviously, when an article is only one or two paragraphs long, it makes no sense to add another paragraph summarising the content. However, this template is very frequently placed on stub articles.
I did some research on this using PetScan, which gives me 2,015 articles contained in both Category:All stub articles and Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. This latter category tracks several templates, but taking a random sample I found that 50 of 72 articles returned by PetScan were tagged with "lead too short". Of those 50, there were only 4 that I didn't think were incorrectly tagged ( 1, 2, 3, 4). The remainder comprise 63.8% of the 72 sampled articles; extrapolating from that, we can estimate a total of 1,285 stubs incorrectly tagged with "lead too short", which is 13% of this template's total transclusions. Some examples of bad tags: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. It looks as though editors are adding these tags to indicate that the article should be expanded, but that's what the stub tag is for.
I suggest adding the following text, in bold, to the documentation: "This template should not normally be placed on very short articles." Editors could then point to this, if necessary, as justification for removing inappropriate tags. Dan from A.P. ( talk) 14:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Incredibly late reply to this, but there's no real clear transition from stub to non-stub. I certainly encounter plenty of articles which have something resembling a lead section but are still stubs. Guidance on when to place it is good. Mechanical prevention from placing it would not be so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 14:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lead too short template. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
We have two distinct templates, but they say pretty much the same thing:
Lead too short: "This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents."
Inadequate lead: "This article's lead section may not adequately summarize its contents."
I'm surprised and confused. They're saying the same thing! Per the documentation, use {{ Lead too short}} "where the lead section is much shorter than what is recommended, relative to the length of the article." It specifically states "If the lead fails to provide an adequate summary of the article's key points, without necessarily being too short, use the template {{Inadequate lead}} instead." Likewise, "Place {{Inadequate lead|date=September 2020}} at the top of articles where the lead section fails to adequately summarize the article." and "If the lead is simply too short relative to the length of the article, use the template {{Lead too short}} instead."
I suggest the text of {{ Lead too short}} is changed to be much more specific about the tagging editor's reason. The template message needs to be meaningfully differentiated from {{ Inadequate lead}}. We should not need to find the template's name in the edit window just to understand which template is used.
Perhaps from
to
The change is in the first sentence.
CapnZapp ( talk) 16:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the first sentence FROM
TO
See talk page discussion. Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 08:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. All of these proposed alternatives have grammatical problems or ambiguity that make them inferior to the current version. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 13:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
If the problem this template identifies is that the lead is too short, the first sentence in the template's language should say that clearly. I think this template's contents could benefit from reworking, rather than small tweaks. Here's the current language:
This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. (
|reason=
goes here, preceded by "The reason given is:") Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page (linked). Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (October 2020)
I propose that we:
|talk=
was added, and appears even when |talk=
is not used; |talk=
was used in exactly one article, as of October 1)I think something like this would be more clear:
This article's lead section needs to be expanded so that it adequately summarizes the article's key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (if reason=, add "The following issue(s) may need to be addressed: (
|reason=
goes here.") Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page (linked). (October 2020)
I am not wedded to any of this language, but if this template's fate is not to be merged, it should do what it says on the tin. Suggestions? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Jonesey95: what on Earth: the problem was never with this template, but with the other ones. @ CapnZapp: you didn't bother notifying anyone about this request. I'll be reverting this completely unnecessary change (which elides the actual problem that we were supposed to be addressing) very shortly if there isn't an exceptionally good reason not to. And for what it's worth, the reason that templates with over eight thousand transclusions are frequently protected is not to trample on everyone's free speech, but rather so that conversations between two editors lasting a grand total of ten hours do not go casually breaking years of consensus on how our articles should be written. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 01:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
the specific (and technical) fact "there aren't enough lead paragraphs to conform to recommendations"
I broadly agree with this plan, even if I think it's been rather overthought. What it boils down to is minor updates to {{ lead too short}} and {{ lead rewrite}} which obviate the need for the third one. Fewer, better templates make life easier for editors. And I say this as someone who spends far more time than most on lead sections.
Chris, when a user like me sees a 30K article with only a two paragraph lead, we go "the lead is too short". We then apply the template called {{ Lead too short}}, expecting this template to say "the lead is too short".
What we do not expect is the template saying something confusingly similar to what {{ inadequate lead}} says, namely that the lead section doesn't adequately summarize its contents. Had I wanted to post a cleanup tag that said something about the inadequate lead, I would have looked for a template called, I don't know, something like "inadequate lead".
This is the issue I attempted to address. Nothing sinister, no conspiracy. Just an honest attempt at a better Wikipedia.
You say There is no prerogative for a lead which adequately summarises an article to be enlarged simply because it is short
as if that was a fact, but you're expressing personal opinion, no? The documentation clearly states
"Place Lead too short at the top of articles where the lead section is much shorter than what is recommended, relative to the length of the article. The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. If the lead fails to provide an adequate summary of the article's key points, without necessarily being too short, use the template Inadequate lead instead." MOS:LEADLENGTH says "The following suggestions about lead length may be useful".
Everything points to this very template being intended to be used specifically when the lead length diverges from our Manual of Style. Except you barge in and accuse people of "neuterising this part of the MOS". I can't even begin to imagine what parts of the MOS I have "neutered"!
You then refer to a very long and very confused TfD that jumbles together three templates into one mess of a discussion. Besides, it ended in no consensus, so I'm not going to apologize for not studying it in detail. You'll have to summarize its talking points that you believe pertains to this template on this talk page. Editors have had twenty (20) days to voice their objections. I see zero reasons why our edit must be so speedily reverted that no discussion can be allowed to take place first. It's as if we broke Wikipedia or something...
I don't understand what you want this template's function to be, and how you envision it as distinct from {{ inadequate lead}}. I am not convinced you're speaking for us all when clearly there are lots of different positions here. What are your reasons for reverting this template to use the "This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents" language when you could just use {{ inadequate lead}} which already says as much? I will have to ask you to take it from the start if you wish to keep contesting our work. CapnZapp ( talk) 18:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
when a user like me sees a 30K article with only a two paragraph lead, we go "the lead is too short". We then apply the template called {{ Lead too short}}, expecting this template to say "the lead is too short".
You have 1. Reverted our work and 2. Keep ignoring the concerns and requests to engage on specified aspects of the question and 3. Ignore other suggestions than your own! Now you have the gall to characterize your own actions as having addressed the concerns (but only the small bits you yourself are interested in) and then appear to single-handled conclude the discussion with a very patronizing "leaving things as-is is a perfectly acceptable outcome". YOU are the only one contesting our edit, yet you keep talking as if you represent more editors than yourself! You refer to your favorite bits of badly organized AfDs as some kind of unchangeable consensus in a way I find entirely inappropriate, even claiming you have done something when it was struck down and not implemented?!?! Hint: it is our discussion here and now that's supposed to build the consensus! Like a true gatekeeper you come here to tell others what the consensus is instead of participating in a consensus-building discussion. It's as if consensus is some unwritten law that doesn't even have to be discussed, much less questioned. For probably the fourth time, you have belittled our work as bad faith and insinuated we're discussing in the wrong place, yet I see zero suggestions from you where better to have this discussion.
Template protection means I can't start a regular BRD cycle which forces people to either explain their reverts or accept the changes. I shouldn't have to start (yet another) AfD simply to get around your personal disinterest in listening to other viewpoints than your own, chiefly because it shifts the focus and the burden of evidence in a way that favors stagnation over constructive progress, but it appears you leave us with no other choice, since this discussion is getting absolutely nowhere - you have not shown even an inch of will to compromise or entertain alternative solutions as far as I can see, and spend your replies mostly coming up with varying ways to tell me to accept your position as inevitable and "perfectly acceptable". It's close to impossible to have a civil discussion with such an editor. CapnZapp ( talk) 16:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The big problem here () is that there has been far too little community input on a very widely visible change.is proof of that, since I take that to mean "I have unilaterally decided silence doesn't mean consensus for the change in this case, instead I'm setting an arbitrarily high threshold for approving your changes". If you have even a shred of self-awareness you would recuse yourself from the discussion (don't worry, the protection means I can't "sneak" anything under your "radar" /s) and maybe ask an uninvolved colleague to take over for you by having a look at the discussion (at least the now-small part at the top before your arrival when the discussion was still constructive). CapnZapp ( talk) 09:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
You barged in here immediately making it clear you think we acted in bad faith
You also claim to speak for "years of consensus". You keep making my issue invisible
If you have even a shred of self-awareness you would recuse yourself from the discussion
I give up. Your invitation to discussion is entirely rank and stale - you showed clearly your bias with your very first edits. You are simply not neutral and I don't intend to discuss further with you, uninvolved editors is needed at this point.
I can't fight an administrator misusing his powers, clearly confusing his own views for "consensus". Also note how after repeated prodding he continues to ignore the fact he barged in here throwing insults around, insults he refuses to tack back or apologize for. Textbook bad faith. He refuses to actually discuss consensus with an open mind, rather only referring to "it" (not an existing current discussion mind you, but "thirteen years of consensus" as if me reading through years-old cruft is sensible, and as if consensus can't change?) In fact, it appeared consensus HAD CHANGED until Thumperward single-handedly decided it no longer had (providing no evidence, except "you just have to take my word for it, I know better than you"). Why would I want to discuss thirteen year old threads, when an AfD from just six months ago makes it abundantly clear there is no such thing as consensus here. It's time for somebody else to take a look at thumperward's gatekeeping actions here. Ping me, since I won't be monitoring this page. CapnZapp ( talk) 16:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Now that the template's message reflects its intended function and usage ( #Refined proposal), it's time to ask the big question:
Is this is a message for readers or editors? I can see the argument for keeping this template's output as is, but moving it from being an article cleanup template to a article talk page template. As I see it, noting that the lead is too short compared to our internal guidelines is somewhat akin to the {{ Picture requested}} template. It comments upon the article quality in a way useful to editors, but in a way that maybe need not distract its readers? CapnZapp ( talk) 08:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
It’s insane to warn a user that the lede is too short.,
Is this garbage template active on any mainspace page in English WP?,
Instead, it's purpose seems to be to shame editors who create or support the article into improving it, by applying this bird shit template at the top of the article., and so on (all from our Talk archive). CapnZapp ( talk) 17:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
so this notice serves to inform the editors, rather than the readers. That is, I do not fully agree with your comparison to a template such as {{ primary sources}}. Sure, there's a message to editors in there "make the article less reliant on primary sources" but there's a clear warning to readers too: "since this article relies on primary sources, be wary of what it says". The same with {{ cleanup-PR}} - we're acknowledging that we might be selling it too hard and that until the article can be rewritten to be more neutral, readers should take it with a grain of salt and not eat it up uncritically. That aspect is lacking here - I simply don't see how a reader can be adversely affected by the lead being "too short". No reader needs to be told "this article starts with just one paragraph instead of three". That's why I made the {{ Image requested}} comparison. The reader does not need to be told "Warning! This article lacks a picture" since, sure, the article might be better with one, but it's not that the reader needs to be on heightened alert just because one isn't there. CapnZapp ( talk) 17:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I've skimmed the last TfD ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_13#Template:Inadequate_lead), and man, is it a poster boy of how to set up a TfD you want to end in no consensus.
To me this template is exceedingly simple. The rules recommendations state a number of paragraphs per article size. So it's really not even a matter of "too short". It literally is about too few paragraphs! When a lead is too short has too few paragraphs, we use this template to inform editors of this fact. That's it. Nothing else is assumed or implied. The article could have a brilliant lead that's just one big paragraph and thus be very adequate, but too short paragraph-deficient. So the template is directed towards editors, not readers. It's just an internal note "we're not following the rules guidelines here". If the reader needs to be made aware, the lead is inadequate, not simply too short.
When you indicate your level of disappointment in the existing lead, on the other hand, rather than lacking in numerical impressiveness, this can be info useful to a reader as well as an editor - like many other article space cleanup templates. I must confess I don't need more than one such template if you ask me.
My ideal outcome would be for this template to live in talk space, and a single "this lead isn't good enough" template to cover all article space related needs. CapnZapp ( talk) 22:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This template is currently used to indicate all kinds of inadequate lead sections, and the separation from {{ inadequate lead}} is unclear - the messages are nearly identical.
I propose we use this template specifically when the lead section is too short (given MOS:LEADLENGTH), and use {{ inadequate lead}} or {{ rewrite lead}} for more general cleanup problems related to the lead section. CapnZapp ( talk) 11:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Please note
User:Thumperward presents his personal opinion as if it were fact. Please do not call me names or suggest my view is in the minority, Chris - this RfC is what will determine that. (Editors are invited to peruse the above previous discussion!). In reality, his proposed solution has failed to gain any traction, and sidetracking this discussion is precisely what I cautioned against. Sure {{
Lead too short}} and {{
inadequate lead}} are the same thing
but that does not necessarily mean they should be merged - this RfC is asking if it isn't better to uncouple them altogether - to give them different jobs (and phrasings). The advantage of this approach is not only to handle the real need to indicate a short lead, but mainly that we can make actual progress instead of (yet again) getting bogged down in no consensus. Once it's clear one approach is blocked (such as with the recent TfD), choosing another path might be best - and this RfC is asking exactly that question. Should this RfC agree to let {{
Lead too short}} focus on, well, leads that are too short, we can then move on to discuss whether we need two (or one or even zero) general "improve the lead" templates. This way we would take a step forward. Regards,
CapnZapp (
talk) 10:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
A short lead vs. a bad lead are two distinct things, and it makes sense to have one template for each and I support rephrasing to make that clearer.I completely agree, User:Sdkb. However, if you peruse the previous discussion (above) you'll see that User:Thumperward unilaterally blocked this, even reverting the progress that was made (all the while spewing baseless insults). Hopefully this Request for Comment ends more constructively. Cheers, CapnZapp ( talk) 11:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, for the sake of being productive, I have compiled a matrix showing length against adequacy, and what templates we have.
Top: length Left: adequacy |
Less than prescribed | As prescribed | More than prescribed |
---|---|---|---|
Does not summarise | {{ lead too short}} / {{ inadequate lead}} | {{ lead rewrite}} / {{ inadequate lead}} | {{ lead rewrite}} |
Summarises | This cannot happen! | Hurrah! | {{ lead too long}} |
As you can see, {{ inadequate lead}} is always superfluous to a different, more detailed template. Its relative usage next to e.g. {{ lead too short}} shows that users understand the latter better and use it in preference. Meanwhile, the alleged issue of leads which fail a certain word count and yet still adequately summarise an article does not exist, because this isn't how summaries work.
The reason to continue to call the template {{ lead too short}} and use the present wording is because the relationship between symptom and disease is quite close, and yet not entirely overlapping. You can't solely fix adequacy by adding words, and yet adding words is always going to be required.
For the avoidance of doubt, the reason the MOS prescribes suggested length is because experience has shown this to be a good rule of thumb, and that's it. The factors that are really important is that it is a) sufficiency comprehensive and b) still a summary and not something else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 10:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Lead too short | {{ lead too short}} |
---|---|
Lead just right | Hurrah! |
Lead too long | {{ lead too long}} |
Lead is hopeless | {{ lead rewrite}} |
---|---|
Lead is inadequate | {{ inadequate lead}} |
Lead just right | Hurrah! |
Do compared the way each issue is phrased to the name of each template :)
In this RfC I am proposing getting the top of these two tables sorted out and done with, and then as a separate second step we can start a discussion around the merits and flaws of having two lead templates related to "summarizing power". The value lies in resolving the deadlock that was the recent Templates for Deletion discussion (link: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_13#Template:Inadequate_lead), where - at least in my view - it became clear that separating out the two "dimensions" instead of conflating them has real value. Cheers! CapnZapp ( talk) 13:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: I'm not entirely sure of best practices regarding RfC publication, but in the interest of getting more opinions, let me ping every participant of that TfD (except Chris who's already here): @ SUM1, Plastikspork, Rich Farmbrough, FrummerThanThou, Marokwitz, Funandtrvl, Dominic Mayers, Pigsonthewing, Debresser, DeNoel, Nyttend, Jonesey95, Koafv, Soumya-8974, Dimadick, Tom (LT), Pyxis Solitary, Chiswick Chap, Pi314m, MaxEnt, Hobbes Goodyear, and Francis Schonken: CapnZapp ( talk) 14:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
In looking up the transclusions, they are as follows:
According to the usage above, Template:lead too short is the most used. I would keep it, and then merge template:improve lead to template:lead rewrite. Users seem to like defining leads by length, so why fight it?
I have been pinged due to an observation I submitted 10 March 2020 in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 March 8#Template:Inadequate lead. I presently read {{ Improve lead}} as a lead that summarizes the article, but lacks information a reader would consider necessary. As before, I will use the Beyond Tomorrow (TV series) article as an example. At this time, the lead provides key details about the series, but fails to describe what the series is about: science fiction, science fact/technology, economics, political, philosophy? For this particular situation, if I did not have {{ Improve lead}} as an option, then I would opt for {{ Lead too short}}. This particular lead would not require {{ Lead rewrite}}.
It's handy to have a template which has the flexibility for situations in which none of the other templates would be appropriate—a lead can be fine in length and well written, but still missing key points (again, not requiring an entire rewrite). If templates are merged, then I suggest their new function be worded with flexibility in mind. Something will come up later that we hadn't considered when the templates were retooled. As they are right now, I'd say to not merge, but cleanup their descriptions so as to better define their function. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR ( talk) 08:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC).
Err, I'm not sure about changing the wording while the RfC is still open, based on 48 hours of discussion, but I can live with it.
I've made few additional minor tweaks to the sandbox which I hope slightly improve the flow while retaining the consensus to put length in the problem description. Is this okay with people? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 21:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Live version:
This article has multiple issues. Please help
improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page. (
Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Sandbox:
This article has multiple issues. Please help
improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page. (
Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Funandtrvl ( talk) 22:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
fix=
. With regards to bolding, there is a consistency across cleanup templates that the initial noun phrase ("this article", "this section") is not bolded. I admit that the issue here is ever-so-slightly different as the lead is intrinsic to the issue, but the MoS still recommends keeping bold to a minimum. You've added this back
before, but I think this should be kept in line with other templates. I've updated the sandbox again.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk) 15:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)According to MOS:LEADSTUB, a stub article does not require a lead. Because obviously, when an article is only one or two paragraphs long, it makes no sense to add another paragraph summarising the content. However, this template is very frequently placed on stub articles.
I did some research on this using PetScan, which gives me 2,015 articles contained in both Category:All stub articles and Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. This latter category tracks several templates, but taking a random sample I found that 50 of 72 articles returned by PetScan were tagged with "lead too short". Of those 50, there were only 4 that I didn't think were incorrectly tagged ( 1, 2, 3, 4). The remainder comprise 63.8% of the 72 sampled articles; extrapolating from that, we can estimate a total of 1,285 stubs incorrectly tagged with "lead too short", which is 13% of this template's total transclusions. Some examples of bad tags: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. It looks as though editors are adding these tags to indicate that the article should be expanded, but that's what the stub tag is for.
I suggest adding the following text, in bold, to the documentation: "This template should not normally be placed on very short articles." Editors could then point to this, if necessary, as justification for removing inappropriate tags. Dan from A.P. ( talk) 14:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Incredibly late reply to this, but there's no real clear transition from stub to non-stub. I certainly encounter plenty of articles which have something resembling a lead section but are still stubs. Guidance on when to place it is good. Mechanical prevention from placing it would not be so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 14:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)