Talk:Lead (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Synthesizer#Synth lead|synthesizer]] The anchor (#Synth lead) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

organise by pronunciation[edit]

Today, the main sections are:

Lead is ... Also,
 1 When pronounced /ˈlɛd/ (rhymes with "bed")
 2 When pronounced /ˈliːd/ (rhymes with "need")

I think this is a bad start. Since I and every Reader is reading this page, it is not helpful to assume someone can discern by proper speaking. In other words: a non-English native speaker can not know which section to go (and let's skip English dialects). For example: A person in India might not have learned the difference. (Actually, I myself learned it just now by studying this page).

I propose to reorganise the page into, like:

"1. Lead, related to the metal lead"
"2. Lead, related to the verb leading"

Anyway, pronunciation should not be the structure. Sure the pronunciation it would be a good opening line in both sections. -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that pronunciation should not be more than mentioned. There is also a good deal of other cleanup needed; WP:PTMs, WP:DABORDER, multiple blue links per line, etc. — Gorthian (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this has always been a bit of an oddity. FWIW, I think something like this organization from 2008 is clearer than one based simply on pronunciation. older ≠ wiser 19:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find two (well, 3) more reasons to object to '... related to the verb leading" ':

WP, while not exclusively a text- rather than -voice-mediated resource, is (overwhelmingly) predominantly valuable as text (tho there's more than that, re the accompanying Dab page, worth being said)
"Leading" is actually also a finite form of, i b'lieve, two different verbs (or verb-derived nouns) pronounced LEDD-ing and referring to the metal rather than to leadership, one (2nd reason) when used to hold (esp. decorative) glass in place in a window, and the other (3rd reason) when used to hold cold type place in an otherwise less-than-full line of text.

(Note that both/all-three of these usages are candidates here on WP not merely for lexicographic, but also for some encyclopedic, coverage: dicts should not have to distinguish between the 3-D positioning done by medieval and craft glaziers, and the 1-D brute-force problem of printers, yet such mention is probably relevant detail on WP.)
--Jerzy•t 02:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing: Lead as part of job titles[edit]

e.g. Lead engineer, usually above Senior engineer -- 81.153.212.226 (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would be much more relevant on a dict than here; it deserves benign neglect until a paladin appears who is prepared to write substantively (beyond, e.g. "A lead engineer may directly supervise, for example, engineers in one dept and only senior engineers in another.", which is really just trivial lexicographic distinction about subordination as a concept, rather than potentially encyclopedic discussion about e.g. how managing engineers (and perhaps others w/ professional degrees) presumably differs from supervising most hourly employees).
--Jerzy•t 04:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]