This article, bless its heart, is currently residing in the digital equivalent of an unfinished sentence. It lacks a lead section, a crucial introductory paragraph that’s supposed to give you the gist of what you’re even looking at. As of November 2025, this particular void persists. It’s like showing up to a party and finding the host hasn’t bothered to introduce themselves. Annoying, isn’t it?
Template Documentation
Ah, yes, the intricate workings of Wikipedia’s internal bureaucracy. This section is a digital breadcrumb trail, leading you to the inner sanctum of the Lead_missing template itself. There are links to view its documentation, edit it (if you dare), and inspect its history – a fascinating, if slightly morbid, look at how things change, or don’t.
And for those who like to tinker, there's a purge link. Think of it as hitting the reset button, though I doubt it will magically conjure the missing introduction.
A rather polite, yet firm, note is attached: any significant alterations to this template, such as moving it or suggesting it disappear entirely, must be communicated. Apparently, the users of something called Twinkle – a tool I assume exists for people who find editing Wikipedia too straightforward – rely on this template. The message concludes with a perfunctory "Thank you." As if anyone’s truly grateful for more rules.
Usage
The instructions are clear, if a bit sterile: if an article is missing its introductory paragraph, you slap the {{Lead missing |date=November 2025}} template right at the top. Simple. Effective. Utterly devoid of personality, much like most of the internet. The date=November 2025 part is supposedly a marker, a digital Post-it note indicating when this particular oversight was flagged. It’s meant to automatically insert the current month and year, which is helpful if you’re a bot. For the rest of us, it’s just another piece of code.
Notes
This template, in its infinite wisdom, tags articles with a variety of categories. Think of them as digital scarlet letters for poorly structured content:
- Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup – Because apparently, introductions need cleaning.
- Category:Pages missing lead section – A rather literal description of the problem.
- Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify – Suggesting the article needs a bit more oomph, more life. Or perhaps just a proper introduction.
Then there’s the self-reference: this template refers to Wikipedia. How meta. It’s like a character in a play complaining about the script. And, for good measure, it explicitly states that it should not be substituted. Bots, bless their predictable little circuits, need it in its raw form for tracking and categorization.
Following this are a few more symbols that look like they belong to a secret society of template enthusiasts:
- v
- t
- e
These are likely navigational aids, meant to link to related templates. Utterly mundane.
Introduction cleanup maintenance templates
This is a list of other templates designed to fix or highlight issues with article introductions. It’s a veritable support group for neglected paragraphs:
{{Lead extra info}}– For when the introduction has too much information. The opposite problem, equally annoying.{{Lead missing}}– The one we’re discussing. The void.{{Lead rewrite}}– For when the introduction is there, but it’s… bad. Needs a complete overhaul.{{Lead too long}}– An introduction that’s as bloated as a Thanksgiving turkey.{{Lead too short}}– The opposite of too long. Barely there.{{Not verified in body}}– A warning that something in the introduction isn't actually supported by the rest of the article. A common failing.{{Time-context}}– For introductions that lack a clear temporal setting. Important for history, I suppose.
And finally, a link to the Category that houses all these helpful, if slightly depressing, little tags.
TemplateData
This section is for the technically inclined, the architects of Wikipedia’s structure. It’s TemplateData, a way for tools like TemplateWizard and VisualEditor to understand and use the Lead_missing template. It even offers a monthly report on how often this template is used in articles, a grim testament to the ongoing struggle for well-formed Wikipedia entries.
Template parameters
The template prefers parameters to be laid out plainly, "inline." No fancy footwork here.
- Parameter:
date- Description: This parameter is for the month and year the template was added. It’s supposed to be the full month name and year. If you use
{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}, it will, as the name suggests, automatically insert the current date. How convenient. - Example: January 2013
- Status: Auto value. This implies it’s meant to be automated, but also that it’s required. A contradiction, perhaps? Or just Wikipedia’s way of saying "do it."
- Line required: Yes, it’s a mandatory field. No escaping the date.
- Description: This parameter is for the month and year the template was added. It’s supposed to be the full month name and year. If you use
The documentation itself is a transcluded page, meaning it’s pulled from another location: Template:Lead missing/doc. This is where you can edit, view history, and generally poke around the template’s metadata.
There are also instructions for creating a sandbox and testcases page. Apparently, even templates need a place to play and be tested before being unleashed on the unsuspecting public. And if you’re feeling particularly ambitious, you can add categories to the /doc subpage.
Finally, a list of Subpages of this template. It’s a rabbit hole of organizational minutiae.
It’s all rather… thorough. And ultimately, it points back to the same, glaring problem: an article without an introduction. It’s a fundamental flaw, a missing piece that leaves the whole structure feeling incomplete. Much like a conversation where the other person just stares blankly, waiting for you to say something profound. Don't expect me to fill the silence.