I think this is an appalling template message - sweeping and unconstructive, and liable to frighten off a new contributor. I propose a change of wording to "This introduction needs to be improved to comply with, etc." Deb 17:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Here's an idea:

--Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 17:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's much better. Deb 20:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template is linking to categories that are irrelevant.

What are your guys thoughts on making a category solely devoted to this template?Bernolákovčina (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is that you have changed the categories of Template:Lead missing and Template:Lead too long without any discussion, and without changing the documentation, and wrecking havock on the category structure. And now you are asking for input using Template:Rfctag instead of just posting and waiting for input. A typical case of overly zealous new editors. Sorry, but I'll first revert you, and then you'll discuss it. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As yo the point itself, I think that removing Category:Articles needing cleanup and keep only Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup is a good idea. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was being bold. But there doesn't seem to be objection, but support. I did put the rfc because I just want to cover my bases in cause there is no further input. Should we wait for another day before we go back to the revision?Bernolákovčina (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Where did you see that support? 2. Since you were so smart to put up the Template:Rfctag we'll now have to wait it out till discussion ends, at least a week. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, because you commented, i interpreted your reply as a support. Why are you so hostile.Bernolákovčina (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say my rejection of your edits is "hostility". I just 1. disagree with you. 2. think you should have discussed this. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not being hostile, you are being uncivil.Bernolákovčina (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now where have I been uncivil to you? In addition, perhaps you should take a deep breath before you start accusing me of all kinds of things? Debresser (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were mocking my actions claiming i was being '... smart to put up the Template:Rfctag...'.Bernolákovčina (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we being overly sensitive? Especially for an editor who wrecks havoc on an existing template and category structure without any previous discussion... Not to mention the overkill in putting up that template instead of just posting and awaiting discussion. I understand you are relatively new, so I I am not surprised by your behavior being a little out of the ordinary, but I would expect you to accept the same. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think we should delete Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup but replace maybe a category called along the lines Category:Lead section needing rewrite. This is because

1. This tag is for ledes that require rewriting.
2. Cleanup is open to interpretation.
3. Several tags now dump articles in this catch all-holding category (Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup) making the category overpopulated.Bernolákovčina (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A rename to "Lead section needing rewrite" would hardly apply to Template:Lead missing. In addition, "rewrite" is not the same as "clean-up". If I remove content from a lead that is too long, without rewriting any of the content I leave, that is closer to clean-up than to rewrite. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with you: a rewrite can have material removed but it could have material added, including:

• including citations
• writing new material with verifiable resources
• writing new material with notable data/information\
• making footnotes which point to other sources of information (somewhat like a ==Notes== section, put with like a ==Further reading== purpose)

On the other hand, clean-up entails:

• punctuation
• spelling
• date formatting
• style changes "outlined" in wp:mos.Bernolákovčina (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You only strengthen my argument. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how I strengthen your argument. I see rewrites and cleanups differently. I also edit articles in this manner, which is differently. I am a gnome, and I don't research or write articles, because i am not good at writing articles.Bernolákovčina (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please answer a question. A question that you have been asked on your talkpage as well. Are you in fact an editor who has edited previously on Wikipedia under another name? Debresser (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant. Please harass me no further.Bernolákovčina (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you on your talkpage, reading the introduction to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry will clarify why this is not altogether irrelevant. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The category is hardly overpopulated with about 400 articles per month. "Clean-up" is vague, but the specific templates are not. Moreover additional detail can be supplied by a "reason" parameter and on the talk page if required. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Incidentally tranclusion count is 680: [1] . Rich Farmbrough, 17:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the information. But for whatever these statistics are, a recent discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_4#Template:Cleanup revealed that cleanup tags are being tagged on like a drive-by shooting. It would be more causational to have these specific tags (because these tags are intended for rewrites, to inform readers that the lede is too short, to inform the readers that lede is too long, etc.) have their own category, because these tags do not indicate that they need a cleanup, but a rewrite, or that the lede is too short, etc.Bernolákovčina (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, does this mean you agree or disagree with my proposal above, to remove the general cleanup category but leave the introduction cleanup category? Debresser (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i would say that's unexceptional. There's no need for multiple categorisation of that type. Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

What type?Bernolákovčina (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He means to say he agrees. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_14#Category:Wikipedia_introduction_cleanup

Why is this template linking to the Wikipedia introduction cleanup category instead of its own category? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a different category? Just as some people will use the template:cleanup as their own workrole (cf. wikignome), I would use the rewrite category for rewriting. Cf.: category:cleanup and category:introduction cleanup.205.206.8.197 (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Template:Inadequate lead and Template:Lead rewrite? --109.55.4.115 (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead rewrite is more general. Meaning that a rewrite might be necessary not just because the lead is inadequate. But I agree that {{Lead rewrite}} is a bit superfluous, perhaps. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too much to ask that we spell "lede" correctly? -- Kendrick7^talk 11:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Either spelling is correct--one is apparently predominantly American and the other... isn't. As it is, Firefox tells me "lede" is an incorrect spelling. --Izno (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct. "Lead" is the standard spelling on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"lede" makes me feel more elite, but I think either one conveys the intent. The veteran editors seem to prefer lede. I go back and forth depending on my mood or need to show off. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me why the template can't leave? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrakd002.302 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange question. This is a template in active use. It has a clear and useful purpose. Why should it have to go? Also please note that the way to delete templates is to propose them for deletion at WP:TFD. Editors are not supposed to take the law in their own hands and empty the template page. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curious as to why the template for Lead's albums was edited to redirect here.Xenobia4 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template {{Lead too short}} has an RFC for possible consensus. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]