The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article - not the whole article, hence why I split it up. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Because of the edits, the lead is now too short to really meet modern featured list standards, which call for an "engaging lead". I don't understand the obsession I've seen with reducing the size of FL leads. There's nothing wrong with a three- or four-paragraph lead for a list, and I don't know why a lot of editors such as yourself feel the need to make them stubby. Oh, well. I'm not interested enough in the article to edit-war over it, but it does make it much harder for me to make a blurb for TFL, should I decide to choose this list, since the lead doesn't provide enough material to write from. That's really too bad, since we don't have many lists related to aircraft to choose from. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
- As per MOS:LEAD, "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article."
- If it is more than a dozen lines it is no longer going to do its job unless it is a very complex topic - people will simply read the first few lines - any more than they'll skip the rest anyway. - NiD.29 (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
