Template talk:Lead too short

{{Lead too short}} vs. {{Inadequate lead}} (2020)

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

This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. 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.

to

This article's lead section is much shorter than what is recommended for an article of this length. 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.

The change is in the first sentence.

CapnZapp (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Making an edit request if nobody has anything to say. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

Please change the first sentence FROM

This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents.

TO

This article's lead section is much shorter than what is recommended for an article of this length.

See talk page discussion. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Would it ready better without the "what"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

ALT2 "This article's lead section is much shorter than appropriate given its length." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you feel is best, User:MSGJ. Just as long as everybody understands that we're in the process of implementing an edit request. So please don't complicate things that might delay the implementation - let the edit be made first, and then y'all are free to suggest and discuss further improvements. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{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)

Jonesey95, I started this discussion six days ago. Noone objected. That is what "please establish consensus" means. Besides, if you feel there are "grammatical problems or ambiguity" why did you not say so before the edit request was started? With respect, it is inappropriate if edit requests are treated as the start of discussions rather than the end of them. CapnZapp (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This page has fewer than 30 watchers, so it makes sense that nobody would comment. I watch for edit requests, and as a template editor, I am responsible for my edits. I don't just blindly implement all requests; I check to ensure that they make sense to me. As a foolish example, if your edit request had said "I proposed changing the content of this template to 'I like fluffy bunnies', and nobody objected.", I would have suggested further discussion. I have no objections to improving the wording of this template, just to the specific wording that was proposed. See below. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that it might be worth discussing whether to merge this template, {{Lead rewrite}}, and {{Inadequate lead}}. They all basically say the same thing. I wonder if there is text that could cover all of these situations. [Edited to add: number of transclusions: Inadequate lead: 516, Lead rewrite: 1,400, Lead too short: 8,500.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

With respect, that was discussed as recently as in March: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_13#Template:Inadequate_lead I am asking for an edit request that assumes the template stands, and I feel it is inappropriate to gate the edit behind a new (potentially very long) TfD. I respectfully ask that the edit request is implemented first, and that you start a merging discussion only second. After all, had the template not been protected, I could have made the edit myself, and we could be having this discussion from the viewpoint of an already-edited template. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Good gracious, that TfD was a disaster from the start. I had forgotten that I had commented, probably because merging all three of the templates into one, which the majority of commenters seem to have supported, was so obvious but was rejected thoroughly by the OP, who was attached to their own very long proposal. In the end, that attachment and resistance resulted in zero action instead of even incremental improvement. There's a lesson in there somewhere. All of that said, I will create a new subsection below to propose grammatical, less ambiguous language on which we can try to reach consensus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Now that the edit is done, Jonesey95, I've started a talk discussion that hopefully avoids the mistakes of that TfD. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Refined proposal

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:

• fix the first sentence to be clear about the problem, and
• remove the redundant second or fourth sentence if possible (the second sentence was added when |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)

Support. Possibly lose the "so that it adequately summarizes the article's key points" part of the first sentence, since - as the documentation says - 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. This template is specifically about the length of the lead being not long enough - there is no assumption of the article's key points. This template does not need to do the job of the other template - I say let editors apply both templates when both issues are present, just like for every other cleanup template!

As an aside, the edit request mechanism is protection against vandalism and errors, not a replacement for talk page consensus or second stage thereof. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there is no reason to hold off making the change. In short - let us make the template reflect its current status now, and worry about future TfDs later. Unless you encounter actual opposition in a reasonable timeframe, Jonesey95, I urge you to implement your proposal speedily. Please remember that any concerned parties have had a full week now to engage, and aren't likely to do so if not already. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. And re the edit request, each template editor has their standards. Mine include reluctance to change text in a way that makes it ungrammatical or ambiguous when better options are available. I consider that sort of text an error, so in those cases, template protection is working as designed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:49, 7 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)

This revert has reintroduced the redundant "discuss on the talk page" sentence and returned the actual explanation of the problem into a sentence that talks about summarizing rather than expanding. Thumperward, what language do you propose for a template called "Lead too short"? Ideally, the redundant "discuss" sentence can be removed again, but I welcome your explanation of "the actual problem that we were supposed to be addressing". – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thumperward "reverting very shortly" - you gave a grand total of five minutes response time before you took upon yourself to decide nobody objected to your revert proposal. CapnZapp (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

What is your problem with the edit? Saying "what on Earth" isn't exactly specific? "the problem was never with this template, but with the other ones." Please explain? CapnZapp (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of this template (and several overlapping ones, per that last TfD) is to address a common problem with article leads. This problem has the following characteristics:

1. The article's lead does not serve as an adequate summary of the article.
2. Its length is a key contributor to this.

{{Inadequate lead}} is for the relatively uncommon case where #2 does not apply. {{Lead rewrite}} is for cases where the problem is not merely adequacy but because the lead doesn't contain the right things in the first place. But this is and always has been the common one. However it's worth reiterating that while #2 causes #1, it is #1 that needs to be fixed, so the {{ambox}} problem statement should focus on that.

Jonesey95's proposal reiterates the fix (expand the lead) in the problem statement. This makes the fix tautological ("expand the lead so that it no longer needs to be expanded"). Your proposal went one further and removed the actual problem from the problem statement entirely, relegating it to the second half of the fix. This is two steps backwards.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I'm fine with the removal of the current second sentence. That's all the tightening needed here IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Thumperward, I'm assuming you have familiarized yourself with the recent talk discussions. The problem I perceived was that {{Inadequate lead}} and this template are confusingly similar, and my suggestion is for us to use {{Inadequate lead}} when the problem is that the lead is inadequate (for whatever reason), while this template is reserved for the specific (and technical) fact "there aren't enough lead paragraphs to conform to recommendations".

Now, if you have a different outlook, you are free to argue for that, but at the very least I expect you to agree that the documentation in that case is inadequate. We do not provide clear guidance as to when each template is to be used, and why we keep two templates with so very similar messages.

Finally, I have now spotted your other messages, User:Thumperward. I need to ask you to remain CIVIL and stop using inflammatory language. I am not "going further" in a direction that only exists in your mind. Characterizing the work of others as "completely unnecessary" is not assuming good faith. Neither is accusing others of "sneaking in repeated cuts under the radar" or giving people a grand total of five minutes to respond before taking unilateral action. Instead of barging in convinced everybody else is in the wrong, how about you explain your position in neutral language and we then arrive at an amicable solution together? CapnZapp (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

the specific (and technical) fact "there aren't enough lead paragraphs to conform to recommendations"

This is not a thing. There is no prerogative for a lead which adequately summarises an article to be enlarged simply because it is short. (This, too, is not a thing: length and comprehensiveness are intrinsically linked.)

With regards to establishing the appropriate usage of this template, I've been working on that since at least 2008, according to this template's history. Likewise, I've been working on MOS:INTRO since 2009. (And with regards to the specific layout of cleanup templates, I was the primary party responsible for the unification and rollout of the {{ambox}} system way back in the day.) So it's not as if I'm unfamiliar with the history, use, or prescription of these templates. Let's look at the TfD, and see what I said there:

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.

So yes, I did in fact agree that the overlap between this template and {{inadequate lead}} was confusing, but only inasmuch as that this template addresses what is by far the most common problem (the lead has not kept up with the article body) and the other basically says that the lead should be replaced rather than expanded and is hence largely redundant to {{lead rewrite}}. Unsurprisingly for such a massively overworked TfD it was closed as no consensus, however, which would seem to firmly recommend that any future steps to remedy the problem are first considered carefully.

Were I to go making bold changes at this point, the one I'd recommend which would do least to disrupt present and future editing would be redirecting {{inadequate lead}} to {{lead rewrite}} and leaving this one along (save for the minor tweak discussed by Jonesey95 above). That template only has 1/16th of the uses of this one, which is a pretty clear organic indicator of which problem is bigger.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thumperward, it would help me understand your recommendation for changes to this template (leaving aside the others for now, since the TFD was closed and I have no desire to relitigate it here, despite agreeing that there are too many of these templates) if you would make a proposal of specific new language for this template. I think that the current (reverted) language fails to address length in the bold statement and needlessly repeats itself. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Length is a symptom. It helps to indicate the problem, and by fixing the problem one incidentally fixes the symptom. But concentrating on the symptom is not ideal. The only thing that's needed here is to remove the redundant second sentence about talk pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Moving on

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".

A lead should adequately summarise an article. It so happens that the vast majority of the times that a lead fails to summarise an article is because the article has expanded and the lead hasn't kept up with it. Accordingly, the correct response is to add additional content to the lead covering the bits it doesn't already summarise.

Length is a rule of thumb, not the be-all-and-end-all. The reason we emphasise length is because it is by far the most common indicator of the problem. Getting fixated on it is pointless. If you summarise a 32k article adequately in its lead, it will have an appropriately long lead.

My position has been in line with this template's use and deployment for at least the last twelve years. You can fling the royal we around as much as you like, but it isn't fooling anyone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are you so aggressively defensive? Why do you keep assuming I'm here to vandalize?? Please treat me with the respect you wish to be treated yourself. No, I'm not going to study your contributions for the last twelve years, I'm asking that you summarize your current position in a friendly and constructive manner. CapnZapp (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

So far you haven't spent a single sentence on the improvements me and Jonesey95 have done, other to cast wild aspersions on their intent. For the final time, assume good faith and engage with our arguments! Thank you.

To do that exact thing myself: What you're saying does not seem to be inline with the template's documentation. Please address that. Also, please explain again how you envision this template to be used, specifically how you distinguish its usage from {{Inadequate lead}}. As far as I can currently understand, your position seems most easily implemented by making this template a redirect to Inadequate lead. If you disagree with that, please explain how and why. CapnZapp (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've said what I would rather happened regarding {{inadequate lead}} on at least three separate occasions now. I've also explained more than once why the template talks about length, and the history behind that. I'm not the one failing to address the responses I'm given. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

But what you want might not happen, User:Thumperward. Indeed it is not happening. It is unreasonable to limit outcomes to either your desired change, or no change at all. Since the latest discussion failed, that should make you open doors to other, new, avenues rather than close them. You took it upon yourself to revert the work of others. So far all your arguments boil down to "I don't like it - I want something else". And it comes laced with a hefty dose of accusations, which you refuse to acknowledge or apologize for. You keep responding as if your position is clear, but I see nothing but gate-keeping here. So far you have made a revert, but what is your next step in a constructive direction? Are you going to address our actual concerns? CapnZapp (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I actually have:

1. Remove the redundant sentence about the talk page from {{lead too short}}. Jonesey95 already removed this over a week ago, so this is settled.
2. Redirect {{inadequate lead}} to {{lead rewrite}}. I said as much during the TfD, but there was no clear consensus to do so, so I've left it. My feeling here is that this is a minor bit of cleanup which mostly helps to reduce template sprawl rather than really fixing any problems, and that people have demonstrably favoured the other two templates anyway, so I'm not losing any sleep over it. If at some point consensus emerges that this is the right choice then I'll happily do that too.

That's all that's needed here. The other concerns that have been raised are either wildly out of consensus ("this is a non-problem more suitable to a talk page template") or misunderstand the relationship between symptom and cause ("length is important in and of itself") and neither have a demonstrable consensus to change. In those circumstances, leaving things as-is is a perfectly acceptable outcome. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

There's zero progress on the issues originally raised. There is zero indications you regret your hurtful and unsubstantiated accusations. But I'll give you a couple of more days to respond, User:Thumperward. If there is no movement on this, I'm afraid the next step will have to be some sort of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution* to force you off this holding pattern where you neither assume good faith nor engage in constructive progress. *) Suggestions by uninvolved third parties welcomed. CapnZapp (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, what do you mean 'we', paleface? This was an editprotected request whose only response was from the admin looking to action it. It isn't difficult to examine the history to see the volume (or lack thereof) of response to this. That's one reason (maybe even the key one) to take things slowly. Without wider input, people only notice changes once they've been made (which is what happened here, when I suddenly saw a very unusual edit to a fully protected template with >4000 transclusions). And indeed, this is exactly how BRD is supposed to work: you boldly raised an editprotected, it got reverted, and now it's time for you to convince people why it should be restored.

Secondly, when it comes to controversial changes with wide-reaching impact (as is the case here), the onus has always been on the parties wanting to make a change to get consensus for it. You can throw around accusations of abuse, gatekeeping etc as much as you want, but doing so in place of actually responding to the issues I've repeatedly raised is textbook ad hominem. The problem here isn't that an evil admin is foiling your every move, it's that you're not defending the substance of the changes.

By all means take this to a wider forum! The big problem here (other than your having chosen to stamp your feet rather than actually respond to the points I've raised) is that there has been far too little community input on a very widely visible change.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

You barged in here immediately making it clear you think we acted in bad faith. You keep belittling people who disagree with you. "stamp your feet", indeed. You characterize the work of others as "completely unnecessary change", immediately revert, and then ask me to convince you as if you're open to discussion?? You also claim to speak for "years of consensus". You keep making my issue invisible, always seeing things through YOUR preferred lens ("the problem was never with this template, but with the other ones"). You keep being convinced your opinion is the consensus ("this wildly-out-of-consensus interpretation"), yet you are the only one speaking for it. You accuse me for "neuterise this part of the MOS" which is wildly inappropriate. You tell me to "seeking a proper audience for it" as if this place is somehow not the proper place to discuss the template (and offer no suggestions as to where you'd like it discussed). Finally you're way out of line with "sneaking in repeated cuts under the radar", which convinces me you will never listen to us in good faith. I'm not "throw[ing] around accusations of abuse" - I'm telling you exactly what you are doing wrong. When you accuse me of "textbook ad hominem" you come across as utterly unable to see your own impact on the discussion. If this isn't enough to make you reflect on your own position, nothing will ever be. Discussing the actual subject matter with you appears to be an utter waste of time, which is why I use the term "gatekeeper", especially since you are an administrator and can negate my every move. Just 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

There's that "we" again. I reverted an overly-hasty editprotected; the admin responsible has said that he didn't take any offence from this. While I did, and still do, assert that your position is not in line with the existing consensus, and while it's increasingly difficult to get you to actually discuss the substance of the changes and not my own alleged war crimes, I don't think this is in bad faith so much as just ineffective (even arguments ad hominem are not necessarily made in bad faith).

You also claim to speak for "years of consensus". You keep making my issue invisible

I mean, there's an archive page. It has thirteen years of discussion on it. The result was the current layout and wording. I'm not sure that the scare quotes there are really necessary. As for "making [your] issue invisible", I've kept asking you to respond to the rebuttals made of your original arguments and you've ignored those invites. Maybe if you opted to do that instead of posting long paragraphs accusing me of nefariously undermining you that might help make them more visible.

If you have even a shred of self-awareness you would recuse yourself from the discussion

Why would I recuse myself from the discussion? Yesterday you were talking about getting a third opinion. Today you're demanding that the party that disagrees with you be disqualified.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

Article space or Talk space?

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)

As far as I could see, all previous TfDs only concerned themselves with "should we get rid of it". In my view that explains the heated arguments. Why limit our discussion to keep or delete (or merge) when - as I see it - the main argument against the template "it annoys our readers" is easily fixed by making it a talkspace template! Anyway, just a thought... CapnZapp (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is more akin to {{primary sources}} or {{cleanup-PR}}. It is a gentle warning to readers that they should read the article with the understanding that it does not yet live up to our standards, and a note to editors that the article could be improved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure - the continued existence of the template despite three TfD's definitely mean there are editors with opinions similar to yours. I was more thinking of what I perceive to be the main argument for deletion, and how to completely satisfy it without actually deleting it. That is, arriving at something everybody might be able to live with (I'm sure there's a fancy name for agreeing on a compromise like that :) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I am misreading. I looked at the two March 2020 TFD discussions, and I mostly see arguments for merging, not deletion. My understanding of those nominations and discussions is that some editors (including myself) think that three templates that say essentially the same thing (i.e. "the lead is not good enough") could be reduced to two, or to one. I don't care enough to argue about it, though.

I don't see why this particular cleanup template, out of the myriad of cleanup templates, should be moved to talk pages or otherwise minimized. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously that's a question for those disliking the template to answer. I just saw reactions like 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)

My proposed solution relies on the fact that 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)

But it's just a suggestion, and if all those editors that have advocated for this template's deletion or merger aren't satisfied with a move to talkspace, then nothing will come of it. 17:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've skimmed the last TfD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

The lead of an article is the first thing our readers see. It leaves the strongest impression. It is incredibly frequently cited in whole by external parties to reflect what we have to say on a subject. Frankly, given this wildly-out-of-consensus interpretation on the value that having a good lead has, I'm reverting the recent editprotected immediately. If you want to neuterise this part of the MOS then you can do so by seeking a proper audience for it and not sneaking in repeated cuts under the radar. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

:-( :-( :-( CapnZapp (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The intro is very important because that is where most readers start reading. That is also why it is important not to put stuff there that is not needed. Is this template needed there? No. Any editor can easily and immediately see if the intro is significantly too short. Is there a risk that the reader is hurt by not knowing that the intro is too short? No. There is no misinformation involved. Whould it be good to collect information about articles with too short intros? Yes, this template can have such a valuable function. It creates a category where editors can go to find articles in need of improved intros. I am all for CapnZapp's suggestion to move this template to the talk page. As a very acceptable compromise it could be moved to the bottom of the article, like the stub templates. To repeat: Placing it at the top causes a lot of harm to readability and very litle utility. Placing it at the bottom should be acceptable to all. --Ettrig (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It most certainly isn't immediately obvious that a lead is too short. Much like almost every one of our guidelines (including such trivial things as separating fact from fiction, not including personal opinion, and referencing claims), readers are almost certainly unfamiliar with it until they're introduced to it. Indeed it's no different from any of those other problems in terms of how it should be pointed out. Doing it in-place helps to guide potential editors to a fix far more effectively than stashing it elsewhere would.

I would say that your recent edits to remove the tag ([1] [2] [3] [4]) were all absolutely correct (three of them are very short articles already, and the other is a list article which has its own formatting guidelines). Would you have left those tags in place were they hidden at the bottom? That wouldn't have been correct, and so in a way is more evidence that the current visibility does the tag's job best for it (it highlights a problem where it exists, and can be removed if it doesn't apply). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you are interested in the answer to your question. But here it is, anyway. It seems to me that noone apart from my lonesome takes an interest in removing bad uses of this template. Therefore it is very easy to find them. Now and then I review some of the articles with this template in them (what links here) and remove the faulty ones, about half the articles that I look at. No, I would not have done this had they been placed at the bottom. That is because then they would not have been far less damaging to the readability of the articles. So then I would not have had the incentive. But no, it was not the position in the articles that made me find them. --Ettrig (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I do like putting my money where my mouth is, and so I spent several hours after this discussion dunging out the related Category:Pages missing lead section. But as you've just indicated, it was tagging the articles in such an obnoxious manner which got you to fix them. Contrary to popular conception, cleanup tags are not prominently placed simply to irritate people: it's that this is demonstrably the best way we've found to get people involved in fixing them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that this is an efficient way of inspiring editors to expand the introductions. If you can point me to any evidence of this I would be very interested. I'm very unsure what you mean by "got you to fix them". I have not expanded introductions because of these templates. What's more important than the good intentions is that they DO irritate the readers, and takes the focus away from the content that is provided. --Ettrig (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Typically articles with top-level banners are low-quality (whether because they're full of unsourced material, or just badly written, or whatever). As discussed above, the incredibly common use of our article leads as snippets for external citation makes this quite an important thing to fix. Put these two together and that strongly suggests the current placement is the correct one. I do wish we had some way of getting metrics on the effectiveness of these templates, but in the absence of this we have to fall back on good ol' personal anecdotes, and anecdotally this template is one of the ones I both place and fix most often of all cleanup issues. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC Should this template be repurposed to match its name?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus arrived at and implemented

---

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)

Specifically, I propose we

1. change all current instances of {{Lead too short}} to instead use {{inadequate lead}}

2. rephrase this template to target the specific use case where the lead section is too short (compared to our guidelines at MOS:LEADLENGTH). It is after all called "Lead too short". Suggested phrasing:

This article's lead section needs to be expanded. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article.

3. we can then examine existing usage of {{inadequate lead}}. If the problem is chiefly or solely related to "lead too short", rather than any number of inadequacies, we can then switch over to this template at our leisure

Please try to keep this discussion focused on the narrow proposal above. Specifically, by keeping it separate from a more general merge/deletion discussion we can avoid the lack of consensus that easily occurs when too many topics are mixed together (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_13#Template:Inadequate_lead). CapnZapp (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• General support. 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'm not sure we should replace current instances of {{Lead too short}} with {{Inadequate lead}}, though—I'd assume that most are correctly placed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  I missed the specific phrasing suggestion. I'm not sure that that actually helps clarify the template's purpose. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• {{Lead too short}} and {{inadequate lead}} are the same thing, and all that's needed here is to merge them. {{Lead too short}} confuses the odd person (such as the author of this RfC) because a too-literal reading of it implies that there is such a thing as a lead which is simultaneously too short and already an adequate summary. CapnZapp is simply mistaken that we have some sort of demand that leads be of a certain word count even if they already summarise an article. This simply is not a problem that we have, and the proposed rewording would be the literal opposite of an improvement. @Sdkb:: we already have a second template for that issue: {{lead rewrite}}. There is no need to address this twice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thumperward, I did notice that template, but I avoided bringing it up per CapnZapp's request we try to keep this simple. It seems unavoidably intertwined, though. What's clear to me and what I hope we can agree on is that we currently have three templates where we ought to have only two: one for leads that are too short, and one for leads that just need copy editing or something else besides an expansion. I haven't looked enough into this to have a strong opinion about which should be merged to where, but it seems that's an avenue of contention. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  Precisely so: we need two, and that's the correct two to keep. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:37, 7 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)

You do realise that by immediately reverting to "a big bad admin is attacking me" you're somewhat undermining the alleged reason for taking this to a formal RfC, right.

Anyway, for the sake of being productive, I have compiled a matrix showing length against adequacy, and what templates we have.

Matrix of lead templates

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)

Thank you for your productive efforts. Let me do the same but for what I am proposing. If we instead do not mix length and adequacy, and instead treat them separately, we get:

lead templates related to length

Lead too short	{{lead too short}}
Lead just right	Hurrah!
Lead too long	{{lead too long}}

lead templates re: "summarizing power"

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

• Lead too short already correctly identifies the problem. We have many leads that offer no summary of their article's contents, and are often limited to a single sentence. "Inadequate lead" is too vague in identifying the problem, and seems redundant. Dimadick (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Once again, length is an indicator, and not a problem in itself. Separating the two out doesn't make any sense. You don't need to have two steps here: just remove {{lead inadequate}} and you have one template per use case. Job done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Personally, I feel that 'lead too short' is ideal as a flag; it tells me that more is needed, and the solution is always the same - write a decent summary of the article body. I don't, however, think that {{Lead not a decent summary of the article body}} would be much of an improvement. Guys, there's tons of work to be done on this encyclopedia, mainly getting things decently described and cited. Let's not faff about renaming perfectly clear and helpful templates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Merge all (otherwise, merge to two, per Chris Cunningham). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Well, in looking at these templates noted above, Template:Inadequate lead was re-directed to Template:improve lead on 3 December 2020. So, here are the templates in the navbox below, as they are on 10 December 2020.

In looking up the transclusions, they are as follows:

1. template:lead too short - 8,329
2. template:lead rewrite - 1,400
3. template:lead too long - 899
4. template:improve lead - 518
5. template:lead missing - 379
6. template:lead extra info - 133

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?

Funandtrvl (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not fighting anything. Users do like to define leads by length, but the current phrasing of this template doesn't say so! I want a template whose output says something to the effect of "The lead is too short", that is, with a focus on the lead not having enough paragraphs per WP:LEADLENGTH. Ideally that template is called {{lead too short}}. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

It is that function that is discussed here. Should {{Lead too short}} be specifically about leads that are, well, too short? CapnZapp (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Change nothingNo merge, no change of functionality If "Lead too short" is used incorrectly on certain articles instead of "Inadequate lead", then replace it on a case to case basis only. An inadequate lead is a lead that does not correctly summarize the article, which says nothing about length. "Lead too short" is precisely that, too short. I understand that anything that is too short is inadequate, but the opposite is not true. Debresser (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that is my gist. Much appreciated. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Debresser I identify two problems. One, we have a template named {{Lead too short}} that doesn't talk about short leads. Two, we have two templates (or more!) with near-identical phrasings, which cause confusion (and calls for mergers). I'm suggesting that both problems would be solved by reserving {{Lead too short}} for when you wish to indicate that the lead is too short. Changing nothing, on the other hand, feels unsatisfactory, hence this RfC. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm putting words into another's mouth, but I believe "Change nothing" is referring to mergers, the template {{Name}} itself, or intended template function. Rewording the instructions on how to use them would be helpful. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. However, remember this RfC's proposal is clearly stated at the top of the section, and it says nothing about mergers. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on your comments I specified now what I meant. I agree that the text of {{Lead too short}} is misleading, and should be changed to reflect that the problem is not simple inadequacy, but being too short, meaning that it does not summarize all key points of the article. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It says precisely this already. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't say it is too short. CapnZapp (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

1. A lead cannot be too short without other issues.
2. Specifically a lead that doesn't adequately summarize may be too short. It seems to me that this is what is usually meant.

• The only case where a lead can be "too short" and adequately summarize that I can think of is where it uses too much jargon.
• Nonetheless it is a useful tag for people to express an issue which they haven't fully analyzed.

Therefore I would suggest we change the wording to match the name and request that a more specific template is used. Ideally we should also do the work of retagging, but that's really down to individuals and projects.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC).

What do you mean, use a more specific template than "Lead too short"? I think that being too short is the most specific template available for leads that are too short (= don't summarize all points of the article). Debresser (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

What would be everyone's suggestions to improve the wording of this template? Funandtrvl (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Something stupidly simple, like replacing "This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents." by "This article's lead section is too short." Debresser (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

That is the literal opposite of an improvement. The problem is that the lead does not provide an adequate summary. The solution is to expand it. This wording suggests that people fill it with ipsum loren to hit an arbitrary word count. The current text does not confuse anyone; it merely offends the sensibilities of a hypothetical reader who cannot divine the difference between symptom and cure. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Which is precisely why I think the rewrite I propose is an improvement, because it states in simple terms what the problem is and how to fix it. The present wording may be more correct, but nobody understands it, which gave rise to this very Rfc. If the smart wording didn't work, then let's try simple wording! I repeat: WP:KISS. Debresser (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The wording says "this doesn't summarise the lead. Add to it." Your suggestion says "this is too short. add to it." The latter completely misses the point. I don't actually buy that a template with >8000 transclusions is understood by "nobody"; indeed, not even any of the participants here claim not to understand it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

As you said correctly above, I propose to point out the symptom, you want to stay with the underlying disease. To take your analogy a step further, nobody understand the writing of doctors, especially not in Latin; we need something simple here. We tried it your way, and it is ambiguous and gives rise to periodic posts like this one (I remember another one many years ago), so now let's try it the other way. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see a first draft for re-wording the template, in the sandbox, at [5]. Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks Funandtrvl (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I wholly agree with User:Debresser's proposal to reword the {{lead too short}} template to say the lead... is too short! @Funandtrvl: if you study the page history you'll find that I tried a different phrasing with the same idea back in October (with the help of User:Jonesey95) that you might want to check out. This time hopefully User:Thumperward can't use frivolous and insulting argumentation to keep us from successfully implementing the change. (If your version is the one that achieves consensus I don't mind.) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Funandtrvl Looks good to me. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your comments, I moved the sentence referring to the talk page, to be the last sentence, instead of in the middle. I don't know why the ambox has it that way, as the default. I'll change the template so this will be finished, for now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funandtrvl (talk • contribs) 00:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Can I ask if it's possible to link "may be too short" directly to the relevant section (i.e. MOS:LEADLENGTH) as I feel it would help a new user? (You'll see one way of doing that in Jonesey95's previously linked version.) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I second this proposal. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Pushing stuff during an open RfC

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)

Well, the RfC has been open since 1 December, I'm hoping that @CapnZapp: will close it soon. In @Thumperward:'s edit here, the bold text needs to be added back to the beginning of lead section..... One problem that I ran into with putting the 'call to action' to discuss the talk page to the end of the paragraph, is that on the {{multiple issues}} template, it causes the wording to be rather long, as in the example at Keyboard technology. So, we need to pull the line that should be the 'fix' and put it back into fix, instead of under the 'issue' parameter. As you will see in Template:multiple issues, the other templates start their bolding right after the word, article.

Live version:

Sandbox:

Funandtrvl (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Good work with the use of 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)

I agree that making edits during an ongoing Rfc also had me taken aback, but I too decided I can live with that. I agree with Thumperward's tweaks on the sandbox.

Funandtrvl, what about splitting "isuse" and "fix" or not? The difference seems to be the placement of the reference to the talkpage. I think combining them is better, although I have posted about this at Module_talk:Message_box#Talk_location. Debresser (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Since I have a (set of) preferred outcomes, and this is my first RfC in any regard, I would like to disqualify myself as a RfC closer in this instance. Furthermore, I would like to hope I haven't pushed for (as opposed to after-the-fact support) "live edits" (if that's a RfC faux pas). Hope that helps. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A user who was involved in an Rfc should not close it. That is the rule. In this case, since the edit was already made, we can smiply wait for as long as it takes for an uninvolved admin or editor to notice this Rfc after its 30 days and lcose it. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

No objections. I was just responding to Well, the RfC has been open since 1 December, I'm hoping that @CapnZapp: will close it soon. CapnZapp (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

In comparing the templates under Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup#Cleanup, I'm seeing the noun in the sentence being bolded, and also, not being bolded. There doesn't seem to be any consistency, to me, and I can't find a specific reference to it in the MOS. If there is a reference, please bring it to my attention. I'm partial to bolding the 'lead section' only because when I read the bolded part first without 'lead section', I immediately ask the question, 'What is too short?' Variably, if the 'lead section' is bolded, then the thought doesn't come to mind. Other than that, the sandbox version is fine.

In regards to the 'talk' sentence, right now, unless we can get an option added to the Ambox template, the issue and fix should be separate. Otherwise, when the template is enclosed within the Multiple issues template, the wording is too long, and tends to overtake the other issues. I realize that having the talk sentence at the end would be better.

In regards to closing the RfC, on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs page, there is no rule for the OP not to be able to conclude the RfC; in fact, the OP may remove the RfC tag, as it states. The page also states that "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the {{rfc}} template." Of course, a bot will also remove the RfC tag, after 30 days. Funandtrvl (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at that list, as a whole the noun phrase isn't bolded. The exceptions are primarily templates which don't follow the usual layout at all (e.g {{further reading cleanup}}, which has it backwards; it bolds the noun phrase and leaves the problem statement plain) or the neutrality templates which are really dispute markers rather than cleanup templates. Especially when used with {{multiple issues}}, too much bold really does overwhelm; I'd encourage keeping it to only what's definitely needed here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Funandtrvl, no, there's no rule. Which is why I felt it appropriate to specify my stance. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I agree to go with the current sandbox version, lasted edited by Thumperward. Anyone else?? Funandtrvl (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Please don't take this as nagging, but I asked if it's possible to link "may be too short" directly to the relevant section (i.e. MOS:LEADLENGTH). If you have actively decided not to (as opposed to just not seeing my question the last time), feel free to say so. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that another link should be added in that sentence, but I would say that the Leadlength section could be added to the very first link, instead. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I've put an example in the sandbox here. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate tagging of stubs

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)

I concur and boldly edited the doc CapnZapp (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll go on a bit of tag-removing spree, see if that provokes any objections. Dan from A.P. (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@DanFromAnotherPlace and @CapnZapp, I agree with you, and I wonder if the Wikipedia:Twinkle folks could prevent the tag being added when there's already a stub tag on the page, or if it's below some reasonable threshold in length. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2023 (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)

We can't mechanically prevent people from placing it. At most, we can take away the ability to use popular semi-automated tools for actions that are probably incorrect. If (e.g.,) Twinkle believes you're making a mistake and refuses to post the tag, then you could still post it manually. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Or alternatively, could prompt you to remove the stub tag. The endless potential of technology eh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)