Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 12 March 14 >

March 13

[edit]

Module:New Taiwan dollar

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Load NPP Modules

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:MicroJSON

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Members

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 21. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Suho

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premature creation. The discography, filmography, and awards and nominations links lead to subsections of the template's subject Suho. "Beautiful" is an Easter egg link to an album by the singer's group. "Exo" and "Exo-K" both link to Exo (band). Lastly, most of the topics do not have an article and should not be included per WP:NAVBOX. Ultimately, this leaves us with links to Suho's debut EP Self-Portrait, his group, his entertainment label SM Entertainment, and its related music collective SM Town where the singer isn't mentioned in the text even once. There is hardly any content here to navigate. ƏXPLICIT 12:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Earthquake in 2004

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of Template:Earthquakes in 2004. It was used on only one page (2004 Alor earthquake), but is now unused since I switched that to Template:Earthquakes in 2004.
Note that extensive series in Category:Earthquakes in year templates all use the plural form "Template:Earthquakes in YYYY". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Inadequate lead

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. It looks like there is weak consensus to merge one or more of them, but no consensus on a single desired outcome. A possible next step would be to continue the discussion elsewhere, or focus on merging two of the templates first. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please read the post and comment whether you support or oppose the "Plan" section, and if not in what way (which numbered steps).

This is not intended to be a discussion for general on-the-fly plans of what to do with these three templates. If you have your own plan that is radically different, please make your own topic.

Preface

This is quite a convoluted issue, so I apologise in advance for cluttering up this page.

I'm starting over from a previous 8 March discussion, because the issue turned out to be more nuanced than expected, and the first discussion became a mess trying to incorporate the new info into it.

I now have a plan, which incorporates elements of a merger, conversion and redirect. A simple merger is no longer the appropriate topic of discussion.

I will go through the issue from start to finish and present the plan I have in mind, in part based on the suggestions from Rich Farmbrough and Thumperward.

Issues

  • Issue 1: Identicality of the content of templates 1 and 2
{{Lead too short}} states the following:
"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."
{{Inadequate lead}} states the following:
"This article's lead section may not adequately summarize its contents. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, please consider modifying the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
{{Lead too short}}'s documentation states the following:
"Place [the template] 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."
{{Inadequate lead}}'s documentation states the following:
Place [the template] at the top of articles where the lead section fails to adequately summarize the article (e.g., because the article has been expanded without the lead being adjusted to address the additions). If the lead is simply too short relative to the length of the article, use the template {{Lead too short}} instead. The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
Both sound a lot like they want the lead to be longer.
However, {{Inadequate lead}} is supposedly intended for leads that are not too short but are simply inadequate.
The only cues of this are:
  • The title
  • The directions to use the other template on each template's documentation page
  • The replacement of "consider expanding" with "consider modifying" in the template.
I didn't know they were two different templates until investigating a few years ago. Nyttend said the same thing in a discussion from 2012. After 2016, when {{Lead too short}} was made orange, I was wondering why I sometimes saw it in orange and sometimes saw it in yellow.
As you can also see, some proposed edits to each template over the years (mostly to the more popular {{Lead too short}}) have led to some drift between the two.
Discussions
The two templates have been previously either discussed, nominated for merging or merged and reverted in 2010, 2012 (1, 2) and 2014 (section "{{Lead too short}} vs. {{Inadequate lead}} (2014)", can't link it due to transclusions).
On 8 March I started another merger discussion (which I'm now cancelling and superseding by this discussion). This discussion revealed that 6 out of the 8 commenters agreed that the templates look too similar. To notify people of this discussion, I posted on the talk page of the creator of {{Inadequate lead}} and everyone who had previously been involved in discussions on this issue and was still an active user. As such, the figure might have some unreliabilities. I welcome any efforts by others to incorporate more users into this discussion.
Most of those in agreement also supported a merge of some sort.
Outcome
However, I then looked more intently at the transclusions of {{Inadequate lead}} and found that it was being used 50% of the time in a manner consistent with {{Lead too short}} and 50% of the time in a manner consistent with its intended purpose.
This meant a simple merger and redirect was no longer the right answer.
However, it does not mean {{Inadequate lead}} should survive, because we then move on to the second issue.
  • Issue 2: Redundancy of the intended purposes of templates 2 and 3
{{Lead too short}} was created in 2006 by FrummerThanThou.
In 2010, {{Inadequate lead}} was forked from {{Lead too short}} by Marokwitz and was nominated for merging back within 3 months, which failed due to no consensus.
In 2012, Marokwitz modified its documentation to direct the user to use {{Lead too short}} when the lead is too short. They did the same for {{Lead too short}} in the opposite way for when the lead is not "necessarily" too short.
However, given its supposed intended purpose, {{Inadequate lead}} seems to be redundant to {{Lead rewrite}}.
{{Lead rewrite}} states the following:
"The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. Use the lead layout guide to ensure the section follows Wikipedia's norms and to be inclusive of all essential details."
Its documentation states the following:
"Place [the template] at the top of articles where the lead section needs to be rewritten. Please give the reason re-write is needed on the talk page or in the reason parameter ... [demonstration follows]"
Currently, there are only two distinctions you could make between the two templates:
  • {{Lead rewrite}} requires change/replacement of the lead's contents, while {{Inadequate lead}} doesn't.
  • {{Inadequate lead}} is more vocal about the fact that the lead does not summarise its contents. {{Lead rewrite}} is very quiet about it but still mentions it in the fix: to ensure the section is "inclusive of all essential details".
Also, let's remember, it's implied that if you have to rewrite a lead, it does not adequately summarise its contents. So, let's assume on this basis that {{Lead rewrite}} does indicate a lead that does not adequately summarise.
Given this, we can derive some common and exclusive qualities/variables:
issue to be in lead, failure to adequately summarise, too short
issue to be in lead, failure to adequately summarise
issue to be in lead, failure to adequately summarise, replacement of content
I consider this a superfluous and pointless split of templates. I propose that it be resolved by a broadening of {{Lead rewrite}} to include inadequate leads that don't necessarily need to have their contents replaced.
By the end, it should look like:
issue to be in lead, too short
  • {{Lead rewrite}} (ideally renamed "Inadequate lead") requires:
issue to be in lead, poor content
Failure to adequately summarise is automatically implied in both.
I believe that the specificity and severity of the issue is best indicated by a "reason" parameter.
This leads us on to the following issue.
  • Issue 3: Parameters of all templates
As of the 8 March discussion, the three templates had the following parameters:
You can probably already see how this was problematic. Nevertheless, I'll give further notes:
  • Despite not containing a "talk" parameter, {{Lead too short}}'s contents stress that the user "Please discuss this issue on the article's [[talk page]]."
  • {{Inadequate lead}}, while intending to perform a similar function to {{Lead rewrite}}, which does contain a "reason parameter", does not contain a "reason" parameter, forbidding the user from specifying why the lead is inadequate. (It had been invalidly used 10/527 times, though.)
  • Despite containing the text "Please discuss this issue on the article's [[talk page]]", {{Lead rewrite}} does not provide a "talk" parameter, forbidding the user from specifying the talk page section. (It had been invalidly used 3/1,366 times, though.)
I requested the addition of a "reason" parameter to {{Lead too short}} due to the following:
Out of the 10 invalid uses of "reason" on {{Inadequate lead}}, 5 of them
a) were on an article whose lead was too short and
b) specifically described why the lead was too short.
I.e., they were better served by a {{Lead too short}} template with a "reason" parameter.
These included:
  • The Marais: "Fails to summarize most of the body, e.g., the centuries-old history, the Jewish and LGBT nature in modern times, and more."
  • Kathoey: "Lead needs to summarize the article, and except for a definition, entirely fails to do this."
  • Memorial University of Newfoundland: "The lead should summarize the entirety of the article, in rough proportion to the detail in each section."
  • The Bible and homosexuality: "Needs to summarize the content of the article per WP:LEAD."
  • Taxation in Germany" Does not adequately summarize the article" (I removed this reason after conversion to {{Lead too short}} due to the identical redundancy)

Plan

The following is my plan for how to deal with this mess and confine it to history once and for all.

1. On {{Lead too short}}, a "talk" parameter should be added (done). This should ideally be using the {{Ambox}} parameter rather than plain text and parser functions, as I found out that the Ambox automatically removes the associated text when the article doesn't have a talk page, while parser functions can't and would leave it with a red link (like the current textual versions already do).
2. On {{Lead too short}}, a "reason" parameter should be added (done).
3. Part of {{Inadequate lead}}'s "fix" wording should be merged into {{Lead too short}}.
Here is a reminder of what the two templates currently look like:
{{Lead too short}}:
"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."
{{Inadequate lead}}
"This article's lead section may not adequately summarize its contents. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, please consider modifying the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
In my plan, {{Lead too short}} would look like this:
"This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. [Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.] To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's most important points in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
The differences are:
  • The addition of "To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines,"
  • The standard {{Ambox}} format (and location) for the talk page text
  • The additional text containing "in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article".
4. On {{Lead rewrite}}, a "talk" parameter should be added (done). This should ideally be using the {{Ambox}} parameter, for the aforementioned reasons.
5. On {{Lead rewrite}}, the text should be changed/broadened to accommodate more of the former intended purpose of {{Inadequate lead}}.
I propose the following change:
The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. to
The lead section of this article may be inadequate or in need of rewriting.
"need to be rewritten" conveys too much of a strict meaning, that the entire lead needs to be rewritten from the ground up, which is not always the case. I believe the above version better allows for issues with only part of the lead.
This seems to match the intended purpose of {{Inadequate lead}}. The number one thing this does is it allows {{Lead rewrite}} to be used when the lead is missing details but is otherwise not too short, rather than always needing to have its content changed/replaced. Thus, I believe it solves the issue.
Going through the transclusions of {{Lead rewrite}}, this does not seem to conflict with any of the uses of the template (as, indeed, it is the addition of a purpose rather than a change in the purpose).
6. Using the link here, all 527 instances of {{Inadequate lead}} should be converted to either {{Lead too short}} or {{Lead rewrite}} as appropriate.
7. Now there are two options. Given the new contents of {{Lead rewrite}}, either:
Option A: {{Inadequate lead}} should be redirected to {{Lead rewrite}}. (With this option, the title may not convey the breadth of purpose of the new template.)
Option B: {{Lead rewrite}} should be merged in its entirety (i.e., renamed) to {{Inadequate lead}}. (With this option, the title may better convey the breadth of purpose of the new template.)

Changes I've already made (that I probably shouldn't have before concluding this discussion)

  • Using the link here, I converted the 10 instances of {{Inadequate lead}} that were using an invalid "reason" parameter to either {{Lead too short}} or {{Lead rewrite}}. They now all have functioning "reason" parameters.
  • Using the same link, I converted the 3 instances of {{Inadequate lead}} that were using the valid "talk" parameter to either {{Lead too short}} or {{Lead rewrite}}. Currently, this means their talk parameters are ineffective, but this should be changed by the end of this discussion, as it was never appropriate for those templates to lack "talk" parameters in the first place.
  • On {{Lead too short}}, I made an edit request that a "reason" parameter be added and did the necessary sandbox changes. Jonesey95 made the change.
  • On {{Lead too short}}, I made an edit request that a "talk" parameter be added and did the sandbox and testcases changes, but I did it using text and parser functions (which would suffer from the red link issue mentioned above). Given the new discoveries, I would use the Ambox parameter. Regardless, Jonesey95 declined this change (and didn't seem to know what I wanted changing), believing it to be part of what was disputed in the former discussion and thus controversial. This new discussion should clear up the confusion.

Please comment whether you support or oppose my plan, with option A or option B, or comment any other input you have on it.

(Tags from the 8 March discussion not already mentioned: Funandtrvl Dominic Mayers Pigsonthewing Debresser DeNoel)

· • SUM1 • · (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure, so I'll just say what I want to happen. Merge them all into one template with the name "Inadequate lead", have it say "This introduction isn't sufficient" with a reason parameter to allow it to say "This introduction isn't sufficient because of X", cause the other two templates to transclude "Inadequate lead" with a reason parameter saying "it is too short", and close the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: I would not agree with the text, because it emphasizes the introductory aspect of the lead. A lead in Wikipedia is not only an introduction. It must also be a summary of the key points. In an introduction, it's not necessary at all to summarize all the key points. In fact, a good introduction might not cover any key point, except what is the question that is addressed. In Wikipedia, the summary aspect of the lead is as important, if not more important, than its introductory aspect. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, as this ignores much of what I said in the nomination, and I intend for there to be two templates remaining, not one. The text also isn't in line with the format of other Ambox templates; the reason should be clearly separated, not made into part of the sentence. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SUM1 and Dominic Mayers, you're disagreeing because I accidentally used the wrong language. I use "lead" and "introduction" simultaneously: I say "introduction" because it's the first part of the article. Dominic, I'm guessing that you wouldn't be disagreeing if I'd said "lead"? And SUM1, obviously you wouldn't completely agree with my idea because you want two templates, but what do you mean with your latter sentence? Could you give me a sample of what you'd like to see? Not challenging you, just trying to un-confuse myself. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: Indeed, it's much better when you replace "introduction" by "lead". A lead is NOT an introduction. It's both an introduction and a summary of all key points. It remains that merging the three templates is only a compromise for me. I really feel that we absolutely need a template with a title and a text that primarily focus on an important, yet specific, aspect of the guidelines: a summary of all key points. This one is vital for Wikipedia, because there is no requirement that a lead is verifiable, which is the main rule that guides us in determining the content of an article. So, the main rule that guides us for the content of the lead is that it matches with the article. That's why I find very important to have a template that focuses primarily on this aspect of the guidelines.
Hidden content. Written by misunderstanding.
The problem that we face, which I did not appreciate until recently, is that this very important requirement is used under the three templates and {{ Lead rewrite}} covers other requirements as well. So, there is no ideal solution. If we merge the three templates, it will be difficult to focus primarily on this specific aspect, because, for example, a transclusion of {{ Lead rewrite}} could be a good summary of all key points, but too technical as an introduction. If instead, we keep {{ Lead rewrite}} as a separate template, then there will be an overlap between the two templates. It remains that, because it's so important, in my view, to have a template that focuses primarily on having a summary of all key points, that we should accept this overlap as a compromise.
Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: "Insufficient" is wrong. It does not cover the range of "inadequate" (as in my plan) nor does it cover the use cases of {{Lead rewrite}}, which you'd know if you'd looked at its transclusions as per my original post. They include leads that are poor because they contain wrong content or content that is not in the body. "Insufficient" totally misrepresents this. As for the reason, no Ambox I've seen uses the formation "because of X". They use "The reason given is: {{{reason}}}", "The specific issue is: {{{reason}}}", "The specific problem is: {{{reason}}}", etc. Look at Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup. "because of {{{reason}}}" is awkward and restrictive and forces the user to write unwieldy constructions like "the fact that it ...". And yes, your use of "introduction" was a major blunder, but I'll overlook it.
Your idea of transcluding both other templates into a "too short" {{{reason}}} again heavily misrepresents the current uses (including for the aforementioned reason) and looks rather like a rushed solution. As Dominic Mayers has said, it also doesn't take into account the lack of a "too short" guideline and thus misrepresents the guidelines. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seriously tempted to request administrative intervention to put a forcible end to the kinds of aggression appearing here, as well as the demands that users only vote for a few specific options. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the very positive and nice attitude of @SUM1: (and he communicated with me in the same way as he did with others) is seen as an aggression, it makes me feel this is not a safe environment, because I could get seriously attacked by people in power here. I was just, apparently naively, hoping for a more in dept discussion than what we had thus far, because, from my understanding, important points have not been discussed. I sincerely apologize if I misunderstood the situation. Please proceed without me. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think that a |talk= parameter is useful. Is this parameter used successfully in other, similar hatnotes? If so, please ignore my thoughts, which are as follows: (1) Linking to sections of pages, especially talk pages, can be tricky, so I think it's better to just link to the talk page, where it should be obvious which section is a discussion of the lead being too short; (2) Hatnotes should mostly have parameter consistency, which is why I added a |reason= parameter without any discussion. In general, I support a merger of these three very similar templates, because they are so similar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jonesey95, I didn't address the talk parameter in my comment because I don't even understand the point of it. Can't hurt to have it, I suppose, so I don't mind it, but I won't advocate keeping or removing or modifying it. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but {{Lead too short}} must keep an emphasis on "summary of all key points" in the text, because a template must recall the guidelines and disagree with I believe that the specificity and severity of the issue is best indicated by a 'reason' parameter.-- SUM1
Hidden content. Written by misunderstanding.
In fact, if it had a chance to be accepted I would prefer merge 1 and 2 under "Inadequate summary": I carefully read options A and B. My understanding is that we make it complicated, because we are attached to the title "Lead too short". It can be simple, if we recognize that "Lead too short" is a bad title for an otherwise good template that was used a lot. The remainder of the two templates are too similar to make merging the templates an issue. Here are arguments in favor of changing the title "Lead too short" for "Inadequate summary":
    • In tune with guidelines. The guidelines says almost nothing about a short lead and when it does, it's either to say it's a good thing or that a summary of key points is needed. It says more about not too long and a lot more about a summary of key points is required.
    • No conflict. There are 8,326 uses of Lead too short. Yet, I doubt there is one case where lead too short means that it is an adequate summary that covers all key points, but only fails to introduce the subject. That's not what too short means. It implies that it's not an adequate summary. Here I want to say that I understand that it might still feel conflictual, because we are attached to the fact that in many cases the lead is obviously shorter than expected. Sure, but in all these cases it's also fine to say that it's not an adequate summary and then we solve the issue. The converse does not work as simply, because it might not be true at all that a non adequate summary is short.
    • Much simpler. It will be way simpler than going through all the 527 uses of "Inadequate lead" to move them either in Lead too short or Lead rewrite. These 527 cases will not need to be assessed and split into two less appropriate templates.
    • Can be made optimal for the Inadequate lead cases. These 527 cases already have the template that they need, except that the title could be even more specific. Why give them a less dedicated and specific template?
Hidden content. Written by misunderstanding.
I would merge the "Lead too short" and "Inadequate lead" templates under the more specific and appropriate title "Inadequate summary". The outcome will be two templates: Inadequate summary and Lead rewrite. The latter would be used when the lead is an inadequate introduction or both an inadequate introduction and an inadequate summary. At first, I had a problem with this solution, because it seemed to me that "Lead too short" usually also means inadequate introduction and thus should not be merged under inadequate summary, but that's not a big issue. One might ask why not merging the three templates into one under Inadequate lead. I could agree with that. It fails to emphasize that there are two very distinct criteria for a good lead: it should be an introduction and a summary. But it's not so bad. It can be mentioned in the text of the template.
Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree primarily down to the retention of {{Lead rewrite}} without changes, which goes against my plan. The appropriateness of the new transclusions of {{Inadequate lead}} is also threatened. If you read the issue, you'd find half were better served by a modified {{Lead rewrite}}. Fundamentally it's down to this disagreement: I believe the retention of a template ({{Lead too short}}) that says the lead "does not adequately summarise" is more appropriate, while you believe the retention of a template ({{Lead rewrite}}) that says the lead "may need to be rewritten" is more appropriate. For the reasons mentioned above (issue 2 and plan step 5), I do not. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And is that a support or an oppose of my plan? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep template 1, merge templates 2 and 3 per option A, rephrase text of template 3 as proposed. By the way, I added the necessary parameters to the templates, not a problem. Debresser (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the parameters, by the way. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand "issue to be in lead". Did you mean Special:Diff/945409716? Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dominic Mayers: What I simply meant by that was that the template requires the issue it's describing to be in the lead. It's one of the qualities that forms part of its purpose. But thank you for reading that far into the post, which others seem not to have done. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SUM1: I still have no idea what you mean by "issue to be in lead". What exactly is the text in the templates that makes you think that they all require that? In any case, since it's every where, it's not important in the discussion. In my view, the following table describes the essential of your proposal (I ignore what is common to all templates):
Before After
Template Main points in text Template Main points in text
#1 Lead too short failure to adequately summarise, too short Lead too short too short
#2 Inadequate lead failure to adequately summarise Split under Lead rewrite (Inadequate lead, if renamed) or Lead too short, whatever applies.
#3 Lead rewrite failure to adequately summarise, replacement of content Inadequate Lead or Lead rewrite poor content.

Here is how I see it instead. Note that I am not interpreting the text in the templates. I am simply extracting the key points as written in the templates (still ignoring what is common to all templates):

Before After
Template Main points in text Template Main points in text
#1 Lead too short does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. ... consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. Lead too short (should be renamed) does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. ... consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article ... it should also serve as an introduction.
#2 Inadequate lead consider modifying the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points in such a way that it can stand on its own Split under Lead rewrite (Inadequate lead, if renamed) or Lead too short, whatever applies.
#3 Lead rewrite need to be rewritten ... be inclusive of all essential details. Lead rewrite or Inadequate lead need to be rewritten in a way that introduces well the article ... be inclusive of all essential details.
Hidden content. Written by misunderstanding.

For some reason, you want to have a dedicated template for "too short". This creates an unnecessary problematic constraint. It's problematic, because

  • It does not match with the text and the guidelines. The text, following the guidelines, mentions that we must summarize the key points.
  • The template cannot be used for articles that would otherwise fit perfectly given the text. You have to manually assess all the transclusions of {{Inadequate lead}} one by one. And the outcome is to split them into less adequate templates.
  • Most people in this discussion would even merge the three templates and thus get rid of "Lead too short". It's not needed.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dominic Mayers: I simply meant that the templates are describing that an issue is in the lead, in contrast to other templates that describe issues in the body or elsewhere.

I wanted to say I appreciate your effort in making those tables; I know how hard it can be to spend hours drafting up wikitext on an issue and have a high chance of it being ignored or rejected.

I get your point about there not being a policy for "too short". I believe this to be more of a qualm with the name of {{Lead too short}} rather than its contents. I think, or I hope, that you'd agree that its contents are relatively benign and are not the issue. They talk about summarising the key points. The reason such a template even exists and is named like this is not to prescribe a new rule ("Lead too short"); it's a reflection, a description of how the existing rule manifested itself. As you can expect, a high percentage of the time, a lead that doesn't summarise key points is a short lead. This probably made the editors name that template the more intuitive name. Note: I won't object to a rename of {{Lead too short}}, but let it be after all of this.

In your table, the description of "Inadequate summary" retains "consider expanding". In effect, this is more or less a rename of "Lead too short". It doesn't seem that different to my plan.

What my plan wants to address more strongly is the discrepancy between "Inadequate lead" and "Lead rewrite". Currently, according to your table, your two final templates would be too extremely close in description for me to accept, which is exactly why I have this following solution.

First of all, you have to acknowledge, if you are going to merge "Inadequate lead" with "Lead too short", that (as per the nomination transclusion links) around 50% of the uses of "Inadequate lead" are instead better served by a modified "Lead rewrite". I.e., telling the user to "consider expanding" the lead would not be appropriate for these cases. Therefore, simply merging these two templates would be problematic.

My proposal addresses this by loosening "Lead rewrite" to "catch" these instances of "Inadequate lead". Its purpose is not change, only expanded/loosened.

The difference in purpose should be such that "Inadequate summary/Lead too short" is for leads that inadequately summarise primarily because they are missing content, while "Lead rewrite (hopefully renamed "Inadequate lead") is for leads that are inadequate (doesn't even have to focus on summarise, just an issue that affects the lead section) because their content is poor/wrong but is not substantially missing. This includes content that needs to be changed/replaced, very minor things that are missing and content in the lead that is not in the body. The problem with the template was the text "need to be rewritten". It was just too draconian and not allowing of sufficiently wide uses. The later note in the template to include "all essential details" should merely serve as an exemplar of what a good lead should look like, not define the issue as not including these details.

The problem is the overlap. When a very short lead becomes large but still inadequately summarising, it starts to fall under "inadequate or in need of rewriting" as well. And continuing on that spectrum, you get leads that have any sort of issue in their content, which may or may not be related to summarisation, and they are only suitable for "inadequate or in need of rewriting".

My solution aims to cover these two ends of this spectrum.

What do you think? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I have modified my table to reflect my new understanding.
Hidden content. Written by misunderstanding.
You wrote Note: I won't object to a rename of {{Lead too short}}, but let it be after all of this.. We cannot do that because many issues are completely different if we have a different title. It is a central aspect of the proposal. The way to avoid all the problems is to combine a clear focus with an overlap. A clear focus on one aspect of the guideline is very useful. Having an overlap, because we mention the other aspects as well, is also good, because we do want to recall the other aspects. As a bonus, it also minimizes the issue if an existing transclusion does not fit perfectly with the main focus.
The focus of a template should be taken from the guidelines. The guidelines say that it should be an introduction and a summary. So, here we have it: the two main focuses are "summary" and "introduction". The transclusions for {{Lead too short}} and {{ Inadequate lead}} fit reasonably well with the summary focus. The transclusions for {{Lead rewrite}} fit reasonably well with the introduction focus.
Well, it's possible that many transclusions for {{ Lead rewrite}} would fit better with the summary focus. Well, a compromise will be needed. Either we accept that and we keep two templates with the two main focuses or we don't and the only option left is a three way merge. I already said that I am OK with both compromises, but my preference is to have two templates with distinct main focuses.
I understand that you worked very hard to have templates with focuses that "match" existing transclusions and that you intend to give them text that avoid overlap. You came up with "too short" and "poor content" for the two main focuses. The problem is that it's a bit artificial. "Poor content" is a bit similar to "poor introduction", but too short does not match any guideline. I have a different perspective. I look primarily at how much the template convey clearly an important aspect of the guidelines. I am totally ok with overlap in the other aspects that are mentioned in the template, as long as the title and the main focus are dedicated to an important aspect of the guidelines. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden content. Written by misunderstanding.
Just to add that I went through approximatively 20 inclusions of {{ Lead rewrite}} and I am now reasonably convinced that the majority of them fit under the summary focus. So, I understand the problem that @SUM1: tries to solve. I still disagree with the proposed solution. We cannot sacrifice the principle that the title and the main focus of the template should correspond to an important aspect of the guidelines. Oh well, we really need to make a compromise and accept that only {{ Lead too short}} and {{ Inadequate lead}} will be merged into a template that focuses on summary of key points, whereas {{ Lead rewrite}} will remain general, but still focus on the guidelines. The point is that having one template with a clear focus on such an important aspect as "summary of all key points" is too important. The fact that the other template overlaps with it is a necessary compromise.
Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: #2 and #3 are not identical. #2 is way more specific, in a way that is important and useful. It focuses on having a summary of all key points, whereas #3 can be used, for example, when the lead covers all the key points, but is way too technical as an introduction. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf, Soumya-8974, Dimadick, Tom (LT):
To which template, under which name and containing which contents? Do you support or oppose any element of my plan?
Be careful and precise about your vote. {{Lead too short}} contains exclusively too short leads, while {{Lead rewrite}} contains leads that have wrong content or content not in the body.
Check my original post for the transclusions and my notes on them. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We support your plan. All three templates should be merged under the name {{lead}}. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974: If you saw, my plan advocates for an outcome of two templates: a split of {{Inadequate lead}} between the two others and a slight reword of each of the two others to compensate/improve. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SUM1, I think we should merge all three. What is unclear? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: You haven't specified the name under which all should be merged to, nor the content of the template that should result. What about what I said was unclear? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SUM1, You asked if I support "elements" of your plan. I support merging. I don't care what the name is. The content should be anything that says, "Fix this lead, see WP:LEAD". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Ok, well my plan calls for an outcome of two templates, but it involves merging of content between all three (from {{Inadequate lead}} to each). I'm assuming your concept calls for an outcome of one template. This is why it's important to be precise. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SUM1, I hope you can realize that it's very difficult for anyone to digest the novel that you've written. I can tell you're very passionate here but I cannot get into the weeds on the hundreds (thousands?) of words you've written here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Thanks for bringing my long-thought-out plan down to a "novel". If not able to offer a productive comment, better to not comment at all. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SUM1, You kept on asking, so I kept on giving my feedback. But novels are accomplishments. Take it as a kind of compliment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am supporting the basic plan of the proposal: keep {{Lead too short}} and {{Lead rewrite}} and split-merge {{Inadequate lead}} under these two templates. But, I agree that it needs its own lead: we should use the template {{Lead too short}} at the top of this proposal.🤣 Back to the issue, I feel that merge all three is useful to have an easy learning curve, but put little consideration on the backward compatibility and the expressiveness of the templates. Please see the three criteria that I discuss below. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break for easier editing
[edit]
  • Quick comment addressing something that was said above. I can envision a situation to which {{Inadequate lead}} would apply, but {{Lead too short}} distinctly would not — you have a huge lead for an article, but it still fails to convey a significant proportion of important information. An article like this would probably be an ideal candidate for {{Lead rewrite}}. I really don't think we should have a situation in which three very closely related maintenance templates could all fit: thus my desire to get rid of "too short" and "rewrite" in favour of using a general template with a parameter that permits an explanation if desired. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: @SUM1: and others: I really appreciate the discussions that we have here. This is not a situation where people should quickly vote for an option. We need to carefully read the different proposals, the templates and a sample of their transclusions and discuss. I don't want to be rude, but at this stage it's clearly fine to ignore the quick votes. With the help of the previous discussions, my understanding is that there are three main criteria that should be considered:
  • Easy learning curve how to use them. A (too?) drastic approach to support this would be to have only one simple template with a link to the associated guidelines and perhaps a reason parameter.
  • Backward compatibility. A (too?) drastic approach to support this would be to keep the templates as they are. After all, if 1800 people looked at a template and decided that's what they want, it's not nice to replace it with a template with only a link to the guidelines.
  • Expressiveness: in one step, we express a key aspect of the guidelines. A (too?) drastic approach to support this would be to have one template for every aspect of the guidelines.
Personally, I feel expressivenes is very important, not only for ease of use, but also because it shows that the community has spent thoughts about this specific key aspect, otherwise we would not have a template for it. Of course, we need a compromise. I am not suggesting, for example, that we have one template for every aspect of the guidelines.
My conclusion is that we should avoid three way merge as much as possible. Many say that they are very similar, etc, but we are not voting here. The templates all cover the same guidelines (or could easily be made so), but they emphasize different aspects and merging them is clearly a lost. Moreover, if ever we go for three way merging for practical reason, we should have a text that is as specific as possible about the key aspects of the guidelines and make a reason parameter ideally unnecessary, except for details.
Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the heavy weight of discussion toward merging all three, the only way this gets closed any other way is if more participants come in and support one of your options. You don't get to dictate to us the only possible options, especially when your proposals are way too long and complicated, and if an admin comes and closes this discussion in favour of one of those options, without more people coming in and supporting one of them, this is going straight to deletion review. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your attitude toward me is useful, because it allows me to clarify that I will be happy with any decision, if it is taken after an intelligent discussion. Now, if people feel this intelligent discussion has already occurred without me and I did not help, then I apologize. I tried my best. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And my proposal (I only gave one, btw) is given in a very short table (see above) and I see it as a way to help the discussion. Every thing else that I have written is to discuss opinions of others. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: As I mention down below, their votes basically carry no direction or plan as to what the final template should be. No one would even be able to merge the templates if the discussion were closed with that outcome, as they wouldn't know what to merge to and what contents to merge. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some thought I am inclined to agree that we should ditch {{Lead too short}} (or make it an orphaned redirect) because a short lead per se is never a problem. It's only a problem if omits information which summary style would require, and which is covered by {{Inadequate lead}}. I would support adding a talk and reason parameter, possibly it would help if archive bots respected talk params. Reason is something I have been happy to use in templates which don't explicitly support it, in the past, but we seem more Lua focused, and reluctant to be lasseiz faire about these things recently. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 16:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I also don't like the name "too short". It's really confusing. We should definitively get rid of it. But, I finally understood that the name does not matter at this stage, because I was incorrect to consider that it cannot be considered separately. This was pointed out by SUM1:

I get your point about there not being a policy for "too short". I believe this to be more of a qualm with the name of {{Lead too short}} rather than its contents. I think, or I hope, that you'd agree that its contents are relatively benign and are not the issue. -- SUM1

I do agree and support @SUM1: proposal. I am willing to help. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator: Unfortunately, despite my notice, virtually no one (except Dominic Mayers) has commented whether they support or oppose my plan and how. Their votes are problematic because they do not mention which template should remain nor whether (or which) edits should be made as part of the merger. I said on my notice, if anyone has their own plan to be voted on, please make a new discussion on it for it to be voted on or, at the very least, lay it out as clearly as I did here. Not only has no one voted on my plan, but virtually no one has laid out their own. "Merge all three" is basically a useless comment when you don't say which template should be left over and under which name and containing which contents. This was the purpose of my plan, which you haven't voted on but rather ignored.
Regardless, I will try to keep discussion afloat, as I put a lot of thought and effort into the plan so that something could finally be done about this. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we need to keep the discussion afloat. Because this is not a proposal how to "merge all three", saying "merge all three" is not helpful. It's equivalent to a non vote. It's not a support for anything, because it's way too vague. @SUM1: I made two tables (see above) that are far from covering the current proposal, but I would like to know if they are compatible with it (especially the second one) or if my understanding is again wrong. Again, I only see it as a way to help the discussion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "lead too short" is very helpful, as it flags for editors that a fuller summary of the article body is required. It's easy to remember and the words say simply and clearly what the problem is. If you're thinking of getting rid of it, then I oppose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree with this plan, even if I think it's been rather overthought. What it boils down to is minor updates to {{tooshort}} 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 Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple template: Nowhere above does it mention that articles are sometimes tagged as having "multiple" problems. Does "short lead" as a "Multiple" work for those who want to retain it? Just asking... Pi314m (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that I should have to digest this plan in detail in order to express an opinion or a concern. I voice the same perspective in software design discussions when implementation gets ahead of policy. Furthermore, it's not even a convergent algorithm. If we actually had three or five different proposals, each conducting their own straw poll, we could get agreement to implement multiple, incompatible plans.
For myself, I'm not particularly concerned with the convenience of the editors. Too often these concerns are imaginary, like criticizing an athlete in a team sport for displaying "bad body language" on the way back to the bench, and then directly suggesting that this observation supports some ridiculous supposition. If the templates are accurately matched to the editorial needs of the article, no-one will find them hard to use in the long run. 90% of the time if you resolve the problem domain, the solution domain takes care of itself. Arguments of convenience are often arguments in favour of not thinking hard enough in the first place.
I'm an extremely heavy user of Wikipedia, and I make the majority of edits on the way by. At a guess, more than half of my edits concern misuse of punctuation marks or metric standards, and the rest concern problems with leads. Often it's a small problem where the lead omits information from the infobox (when last I read policy "infobox is supplementary"). Then you have your leads which don't establish notability or contain puff language. Then you have your leads which were someone's personal essay from 2008, and it hasn't really changed since. Finally, you have your leads which make no real effort to summarize the main points in the article. Very often this results from an initial editor who wished to avoid duplication, especially the citation burden. The <ref name="tag"> mechanism was not obvious to many inexperienced editors.
The worst manifestation of this problem is found on BLP pages. In these pages, you'll get a two sentence lead which answers the "who" question is the most minimal possible terms, and then you get a section ==Early life== or some other kind of biographical summary, usually in chronological order, with no citation shared with the lead paragraph. For my own purposes, I like to cut and paste the Wikipedia lead into my own personal wiki when I'm doing research. These leads are simply too inadequate to do so. Then I have to go spelunking in the rest of the article to find the other main distinctions about the person in question.
The word "summary" itself can be misleading here. There are really two kinds of summary in such a BLP page: first, basically what amounts to running bullet points about the person's key accomplishments and distinctions; second, a reflection of the page's own TOC. Many BLP pages are notable without getting into controversies surrounding the figure. But these articles often have long controversy sections. The first form of summary would not include these controversies, the second form of summary would. I would not advocate a {{tooshort}} template to handle these cases, which are quite numerous. I prefer templates which state what action is required to move forward over what situation exists. The problem is that forward actions are harder to codify as short template names.
In the case where the article has perfectly good content, but it's not in the right place, or insufficiently summarized, I might actually think toward flagging the existing sections with a template such as {{boost}} to display "This section contains information which also belongs in the article lead." or something to that effect, and not flagging the lead at all. Likewise, if the entire article has an omission, I wouldn't flag the lead for this. If the lead is mangled, contradictory, or misguided, only then I would flag the lead. Or I might suggest something like {{lead incomplete}} to display "This article contains important information about the subject which the lead does not presently summarize or reflect." The idea is that a lead is complete relative to the article when the lead accurately summarizes the main points of the article that warrant a lead treatment (for either of the two main reasons).
Basically, on as much as I cared to dive into this, the entire premise of this discussion page seems to be to get the implementation out in front of discussions of how to best handle the subject domain, which is a catalog of specific flaws, and specific remedies. This refactoring seems like a lot of work if all we get is a minor editorial convenience/consistency and it doesn't really improve our handling of the subject domain. On the other hand, I can think of plenty of cases in the software world where the inconsistencies were so great, that no-one could think straight about the problem domain until after the many glaring inconsistencies were beaten down to a dull roar. So maybe this proposal has merit on that front. I'll leave that for others to decide.
The proposal I would endorse in a heartbeat is {{please stop writing two-sentence leads to introduce a ten-page chronological life summary}}. Because for my usage pattern—both as consumer and editor—that's truly annoying case I run into most often. — MaxEnt 05:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I guess I'd settle for {{biography lead stub}} — MaxEnt 05:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also {{lead summary incomplete}} and {{lead notability incomplete}} for the cases where the article already has the content elsewhere that the lead lacks. It now seems to me that my distinction between incomplete/insufficient might have been my most useful point. Incomplete: you just need to boost existing content; insufficient: you need to invent new material out of whole cloth; incoherent: you'll first need to get rid of some existing cloth. — MaxEnt 05:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no action at all on this absurdly convoluted proposal. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposal is too convoluted to be of any use. Diversified messages, with or without a link to a talk page discussion, should continue to be available, depending on the type of lead issues that need attention. E.g. "too short" is fairly simple, and does not necessarily need a talk page discussion (and certainly a removal of such message for lack of talk page discussion, without the problem being remedied should be avoided). A tendentious summary in the lead is another problem, and would most certainly need an explanation on the talk page why the summary is perceived as tendentious. Fine-tuning individual templates should not be done in this mixed unworkable discussion, but for each template separately, on its talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_13&oldid=1264649460"