Template talk:Lead too long

old talk

Whoever that is nominating this article for deletion should change their POV. This template should remind people that some article should be trimmed into multiple articles. --TheSamurai 03:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

deletion

Template:Toolong had been deleted "by consensus" on 03:03, 17 April 2005. See: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/April 2005#Template:Toolong

...

If we go past the issue of re-creating a previously deleted template... This is marked as a cleanup template, but this isn't really a cleanup issue, more like PNA. It's also semi-redundant given that we have the long page warning and {{verylarge}}. Should it be turned into a redirect? --Joy [shallot] 14:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

{{verylarge}} is for categories; {{verylong}} is for articles. -- Reinyday, 01:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Contradicting

This template is contradicting itself! Because when you put this template in front of the intro, you make the intro a lot longer and the table of contents will be harder to reach as before. So this template makes no sense at all. It makes the problem it wants to fix (and I support that, I dislike long intros myself), even worse!

So maybe it's better to:

1. remove this template, or
2. put it only on the talk page, or
3. make it invisible (so you still have the category) or very very short.

--Jeroen (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with too-long intro sections is that they either repeat too much of the body (which is redundant) or that they contain material which belongs in the body but isn't there. It's a style issue, rather than an accessibility problem. As such, whether adding templates to an article pushes to TOC down or not is irrelevant, as the problem is with the article text itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Not categorizing?

I just added this template to the Acculturation article and it seems that it does NOT categorise tagged articles into Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup as stated in the documentation, but rather Category:Cleanup from July 2009 instead. -- œ^™ 22:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Previously, the template was applied only to the "from date" cat if a date was specified. It now always adds articles to the intro cleanup whether a date is specified or not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently?

Shouldn't it be current? Can't seem to see it when I try to edit the page though. Matt Adore (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The template says "Place

with the currently month and year..." - "currently" should be "current", but I cannot see how to amend it as when I try to edit the template I cannot change that text. Please sign. Matt Adore (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. I changed it a little differently. Is this good enough? Debresser (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You can change it by pressing the "edit" which is at the right top corner inside the green box indicating the documentation. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Much. Thanks. Matt Adore (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

On Lead too long

i have moved some content from the lead to the body — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanotchere (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Request to add wording

Hi. I request the addition of some wording to guide editors better. "Please help by moving some material from it into the body of the article or edit the lead in such a way as to have an adequate number of paragraphs". Thinker78 (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• '''opposed''' In the midst of a related dispute in June at [[Donald Trump]] you started trying to make related changes at [[WP:Manual of Style/Lead section]], which is ''already'' linked by this template, but you were reverted and you have two open threads at its talk page. Since this template ''already'' links the relevant section at the MOS, there's no reason to push the ambiguous term "adequate number of paragraphs" into the template. Kinda looks like an attempt to find a backdoor since you're not getting your changes in through the front door. See also [[WP:CREEP]]. And while your comment at user talk about paying attention to small things [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thinker78&diff=prev&oldid=1096526796#] is well taken, there's a real difference between valuable work as a [[WP:WIKIGNOME]] and doing a [[WP:FILIBUSTER]] over little stuff.[[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 11:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC) FOR THE RECORD.... I screwed up my analysis and just posted an apology to Thinker78's talk page. Given the circumstances I'll refrain from further comment on the proposal here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• NewsAndEventsGuy Actually I didn't have in mind the Donald Trump article at all, but the idea to request this was born when I was trying to fix the Spanish American War. Also, I am interested in the Manual of Style overall and lead guidelines in particular, so you can stop with your WP:uncivil behavior and try to assume good faith. I will appreciate if you stop following me around. If you have concerns about me go talk with an administrator as you had planned to do, but otherwise, try to leave me alone, because a few of your interventions except some are vindictive and disruptive rather than helpful, like this one you just made. Thinker78 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

"Moving details into the article's body" is not what most too-long lead sections require

The template says "Please read the length guidelines and help move details into the article's body". However, moving text into the article body is very rarely what is actually needed. Instead of "help move details into the article's body", the template would be greatly improved if it said something like "help edit the text down into a concise summary of the article's contents." 81.106.71.55 (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)