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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The clubs were dissolved. Alex (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've BOLDly combined these requests. --BDD (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be uncontroversial cleanup. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support delete but not yet checked the team were all folded or not. Personally cleaned Triestina, which the empty template eligible to speedy. Matthew_hktc 22:05, 8 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template: USL Second Division stadiums
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
USL-2 hasn't existed since 2010. It could be converted to a template for USL Pro, although there are USL teams playing at high school/college stadiums that lack actual articles on the venue themselves. Even then, I'd propose deleting the USL-1 template since the leagues were in effect merged.
USL-1 hasn't existed since 2009. It could be converted to a template for USL Pro, although there are USL teams playing at high school/college stadiums that lack actual articles on the venue themselves. Even then, I'd propose deleting the USL-2 template since the leagues were in effect merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dba10 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've BOLDly combined these requests. --BDD (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be uncontroversial cleanup. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was No consensus. Ruslik_Zero 17:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The previous delete result was overturned to "no consensus" and it's time for this template to be rediscussed. The fact that a section is empty is self evident, a template is not necessary to point that out. The existence of this template encourages editors to create blank sections that offer nothing to readers. We have ((Expand section)) so the editors creating these sections can start them off and use expand section instead. Can an admin add a tfd notice to the template page? RyanVesey 05:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notice added. Suffice to say I have a low opinion of the bureaucracy which led to the original deletion being overturned when very nearly nobody opposed to deletion made any effort to respond to the actual arguments given in favour. The original rationale stands: this template goes too far in encouraging the creation of empty sections, which results in skeletal articles. Editors who believe that a particular area of an article should receive more coverage should be prepared to stub the section out and use ((expand section)) to encourage collaborative growth. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bureaucracy is not an expert in what to keep and what not to keep. If there is information it can be added anytime - if not what is this waste of space doing here? how stupid does it look when anyone searching 500 BC leads to this blank page on wikipedia as the leading result... Just DELETE it already will you...Atleast put a redirect currently to 6th century BC and any one who has anything sensible to add can be added when some one gets info to add.
Delete; and when removing instances prior to deletion, remove the section headings under which it sits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I understand the desire to lay out future sections, but when that must be done in mainspace, WP:COMMENT it out. Or just write a sentence and leave ((expand section)). It's not that hard. I'll be very glad to see this one go. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think that the nomination offers good arguments for deletion. Even self-evident problems with the article (like having no references at all, for example) should be tagged, for obvious reasons. I find the idea that the very existence of this template encourages the creation of empty sections highly implausible. Also, I don't see how the use of ((Expand section)) instead of this template is supposed to bring any benefits. GregorB (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are clear benefits to not having empty sections. The fact that only ((expand section)) exists requires editors to put for the tiny modicum of effort necessary to write one sentence. RyanVesey 17:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. I'd say in most cases the editor who tagged the section is not the editor who created it. Empty sections are indeed a much bigger problem than short sections, which is precisely why a separate cleanup category is warranted. GregorB (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete per BDD. If a section is empty, it should be removed, no question about it. If a section has little content, then ((expand-section)) is acceptable, since it allows you to say "Please expand this section with info on X" and is often used in that very fashion. No article should ever have an empty section. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After working some time with hundreds of pages with empty sections I noticed that sometimes editors create the sketch of a page or better the sketch of group of articles that share the same structure. Empty section can't be replaced by expand section because empty section is more explicit and pages with empty sections need special attention. Recall that the template doesn't prevent from actually deleting a section. So if pages with irrelevant empty section exist don't blame the tag but the page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would help if instead of piling the pages with empty sections to "Articles to be expanded from..." we had a different tracking category. Then we could check and remove empty sections that should not be there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that expand section can be used instead is invalid. Our biggest problem till now is that we have many taggers but the instructions they give are not specific because usually they just add a tag but do not bother leave a comment in the talk page. Merging with "Expand section" will only result in mixing two similar but not equal problems. IF a section has some data "expand section" does not make clear what is missing and when the data is enough to remove it. Empty section gives clear instructions or what is to be done. Add text or remove the section. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template serves little purpose. It often gets added when a contributor is tired of or mentally exhausted from continuing work on an article knowing that more should be included on some aspect. Very rarely is it acted upon by other editors within a reasonable time frame. Commenting out an empty section is better than an unhelpful template. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- As has been pointed out, the editor who adds the tags is generally not the one who wrote the article, so I do not buy the argument that this template encourages the creation of skeletal articles. ReykYO! 23:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I've witnessed. And again, why do you need an empty section in an article? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because you may have for instance 2012 in sports and 2013 in sports, you want them to have the same sections but in one case you still have no information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd agree that in most cases the user who places this template isn't the author. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 00:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal If this is not deleted, and I can see the utility with the new category for articles with empty sections, can we rewrite the template so it appears on the top of the article and says "This article has empty sections..." rather than "This section is empty". Maintenance tags never look good, but we try not to look dumb when we can and informing readers that an empty section is in fact empty looks pretty dumb. RyanVesey 00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. The tag's utility is in getting the article of lists of articles that need attention, not in telling the reader that a blank section is blank. ReykYO! 02:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful in pointing out important sections that have no content. Dough4872 01:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out the obvious to whom? One just looks — it's empty. No need for a huge yellow label that says "This is empty." If empty is a problem, remove the section header, QED. Carrite (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ever think the reason a section might be empty is because the person who added the tag wants to see content? I'm voting to Keep this one. -------User:DanTD (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And again, why do you need an empty section in the first place? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Useful for suggestions how to improve the article-layout. If you consider the heading part of the section, it is not really empty, so this template can be redirected to ((Expand section)). --Wickey-nl (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of the most obnoxious and oft-abused driveby graffiti templates. If a section is empty and that bothers you, blank it. Carrite (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, it's a waste of space. Deb (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per GeorgeB et. al. It serves a purpose. I only found this discussion because I was searching for the template in order to use it in a new article where I would like some help expanding some of the sections. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – 8 June 2024, 09:56 (UTC)
Delete. Section headers are like the little dividers that they have on supermarket conveyor belts: both are meant to demonstrate significant divisions in content. You wouldn't place two dividers next to each other on the supermarket belt because you only put dividers between your stuff and the next customer's stuff. Likewise, you shouldn't place two headers next to each other with no substantive content, because there's no information on the topic of the upper one. If we delete or <!-- comment out --> the empty section headers, we won't have this problem. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat ironically, if one set out to do just that - comment out all the empty section headers - in order to locate these sections, one would need to rely on the very template you'd like to see deleted. That empty sections are undesirable is not disputed at all. GregorB (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is misleading - I think you've misunderstood the comment above.Deb (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read it again and I still see only two points in it: 1) empty sections are bad (granted), and 2) empty section headers should be deleted. I don't see how this leads to the conclusion that the template should be deleted. And, of course, if the template is either removed or replaced with ((expand section)), it won't be possible to find articles with empty sections any more. GregorB (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It won't be possible to find articles with empty sections any more" - not quite true, see my comment below. GregorB (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Empty section has the advantage that if the section is not needed it may be deleted. Expand section implies the section should be... expanded. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That option is always available. It's called editorial discretion. The difference is that ((expand section)) does not outright encourage the truly silly approach of tagging an empty section with something that says you want to delete it instead of... just deleting it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because some editors add empty sections anyway. We need a way to spot them. A bot can detect empty sections. And then willing editors can decide whether to remove the section another editor added or add some text, or do something else. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. So instead of destroying the entire procedure, we just need to really activate it.
For example ((dead end)) says the page has no wikilinks. This is similar. Anyone who reaches the page can see that. The problem is add links. In the past we faced the same problem with ((dead end)). Why have a template that states the obvious than just add wikilinks? The answer is that new editors can't always do that or they just don't do it. The tags are for us to spot pages and to motivate new editors to help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. While a bot can detect a number of things, this doesn't mean that cleanup categories are useless, on the contrary. GregorB (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be quite clear here: I am enthusiastically supportive of backroom detection and categorisation of empty sections. But not every cleanup drive requires a visible tag, and the bot in question doesn't seem to need the tag to find empty sections, and thus both issues are IMO orthogonal to the issue of whether we should have a visible tag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Examples of how to work with Empty sections: Convert to a list, delete, do nothing because all other articles of the same kind share the same structure (in fact if I was expert in the area I would expand it). The problem is not the tag. We should organise a huge clean up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Makes about as much sense as Template:Expand did. These templates give a false sense of accomplishment, and make us think that we just did something useful by tossing a template at an empty section (something a bot could do, mind you), thus encouraging people to fill the empty section. So I can see why people would want to keep the template, and thus their sense of accomplishment. But these sections get filled regardless of the existence of a template. If someone knows enough about a topic to fill a section, and feels like filling a section, he will, no matter whether there's a friendly but useless template that tells him what to do. --Conti|✉ 12:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serves as a placeholder for an area that is missing, and an alert to editors of where information for a major section is missing. This is quite suitable when an article is in stub/start stage—it's not like the article doesn't already look like a work in progress without the tag—and encourages a standard article format (e.g. entirely missing "Early life" in biographies). If the section is seen as irrelevant, just remove it.—Bagumba (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template is useful for building articles, collaborating with other editors, and encouraging new users to contribute.Hmlarson (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIf the template was of any use we wouldn't have dates as far back as 2008 in them. Much like the now deleted "photo required" placeholder all it does is state the obvious. MarnetteD | Talk 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that it states the obvious. I've seen placeholder sections without the tag removed, but don't recall it happening after the tag was added. If one is against placeholder sections in general, then it might be appropriate to delete this template.—Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Note: Added "template" to clarify after misunderstanding below.—Bagumba (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You statement shows that you do not know what I am referring to and if a section is empty it is as obvious as it gets. Since I am not against all tags - and nothing in my statement indicated anything of the sort - I will not be removing my thoughts that this tag should be deleted and it is quite improper for you to suggest sudh a thing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the misunderstanding, I've annotated my original response above as I was not asking you to remove your thoughts. Also, I did not explicitly write or intend to to imply that you are "against all tags".—Bagumba (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agre with Bagumba and HMlarson: the template "serves as a placeholder for an area that is missing, and an alert to editors of where information for a major section is missing. This is quite suitable when an article is in stub/start stage—it's not like the article doesn't already look like a work in progress without the tag—and encourages a standard article format (e.g. entirely missing "Early life" in biographies)". Invertzoo (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why do we waste so much time complaining about things that are not problems? 99.237.143.219 (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Removal of this template (in many cases generated by a bot) means each time I start adding data to an article I have to recreate those sections. Not too much work one would think, but multiplied by hundreds and hundreds of articles, this certainly amounts to a wasting of time. These empty sections do have a purpose. JoJan (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what's stated above, so many pages link to this template. Deleting it would mean thousands of WP:RED. -- c16sh (speak the truth) 02:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a terrible reason to keep a template. A bot can easily remove those. RyanVesey 03:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sometimes an empty section provides a useful clue about what specifically is lacking from an article. Other times, an "empty" section may contain only a ((main)) or similar template that shouldn't really be removed but instead properly summarized. The arguments for deletion are incredibly weak. Most article problems are "self evident" to experienced editors, but that does not mean a casual reader realizes they can fix the problems (the template encourages them to do so). Saying the existence of the template encourages empty sections does not make it true. No actual evidence that it does has been offered; in principle, it is just as possible that the template discourages creating empty sections because they will be tagged as problematic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd say that a section that contains a ((main)) and nothing else is not empty, but could perhaps use a more specific template than ((empty section)), such as ((summary needed)). Indeed, would it be possible to replace this template with more specific templates? The only case in which I can think of in which empty sections would necessary would be if a WikiProject has a specific article format it wants followed beyond the generic article format, in which case, template(s) specifying that a particular empty section is wanted for the purposes of that WikiProject would not only serve to mark empty sections, but also mark them for specific WikiProjects as items needing attention from them. Carolina wren (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Empty sections shouldn't exist. If someone wants to indicate that particular information is lacking, it can be noted on the talk page. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the same argument could be made for most tags: add it to the talk page instead.—Bagumba (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between ((Empty section)) and most tags. It is easier to remove the empty section than it is to add the tag. In addition, shame on any WikiProjects or editors who promote the lunacy of creating empty sections. If WikiProjects believe there's a specific set of information that should be included in every article a)the article creator should include it, which would make this point moot, or b)they should encourage the use of some sort of boilerplate ((to do)) that is designed for this purpose. RyanVesey 03:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only value this tag might have would be if it increased the likelihood of someone else adding something to the section. Whether that happens could be established by someone with coding and statistical skills. The code could scan for articles which historically have had empty sections, some tagged and some not tagged. It could then determine the probability per day of a tagged empty section being written compared to an untagged empty section. This would establish whether the template has any value or not. In the absence of this information, the votes in this thread are not based on facts. However, I doubt that editors who build content respond to directives like this from drive-by taggers. Unless content builders are responding, then this is no more than a fatuous template limply stating the obvious, adding distracting clutter and encouraging lazy editors. Why make articles worse by slapping on obnoxious tags? --Epipelagic (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with arguments like this, i.e. "This template just states the obvious," is that it's true for many templates that we use, {unreferenced}, {no footnotes} etc. Are we to do away with all templates related to conditions that passersby could see if they were looking for it? The purpose of the unobtrusive little orange box is to help people notice that help is needed. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – 8 June 2024, 09:56 (UTC)
Delete. As a practical matter, when inserted into empty article sections these templates have a longer half-life than most nuclear waste. In my personal experience, they are still in neglected articles three, four, five and more years after the article creator decided to walk away from the article, leaving it "incomplete." If article creators and other concerned editors cannot be bothered to insert a sentence or two of relevant text into the empty sections, they should not have an excuse to think someone else will . . . someday . . . maybe. These tags proliferate in the low-priority backwaters of the project, and they are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I might feel differently if the Article Rescue Squadron or individual WikiProjects had active efforts to fill out the empty sections, but they don't. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and forbidAWB and other "robots" to add this tag without a good reason other than to get a high edit count. Christian75 (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you exactly expect empty section to improve or deleted if not tagged by a bot? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying keep the template but make it difficult to use. Um... --BDD (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Often, editors add this template to sections they create themselves, which they think are needed but which they can't actually add content to. This helps other willing editors to add content to it. ((expand section)) can't be useful for blank sections. Simply writing a sentence does not draw as much attention as this template does. smtchahal(talk) 14:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Carrite notes, this is quite pointless. The few times that I've ever encountered it, it had been in the article for a long, long time, so each time I just removed it and the empty section; and as the Internet is known to say, "and nothing of value was lost". Someone above asks why noting that an article needs expansion should go on the talk page, while other templates go in the article. Well, this template differs from most of our maintenance templates in that it doesn't indicate a problem with something in the article, that needs to borne in mind by the reader; it just says "something isn't in the article". In the vast majority of cases that purpose is served by the absence of the material itself. The reader doesn't need to be told "something is missing!"; they can see that for themselves. On the other hand, editors of the article do derive value from being told that something is missing, and that is exactly what talk pages are for. In there, you can brainstorm and map out at your leisure what part or parts of the article are missing. That ability isn't on offer to you in the article itself; the best you can do with this template is make a mess that doesn't benefit the reader. — Scott•talk 16:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added one to History of Sino-Russian relations to indicate that there was about 150 years for which I could find no source. It is useful in this case and says something that needs to be said. I have no opinion about its use elsewhere. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a good example of a place where the template is useful.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That tag has been there since 2009. Yes, it's been so useful for our readers and editors. I have no idea what I'm supposed to get out of an empty section and tag pointing out that it's an empty section. Reywas92Talk 18:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles should not have empty sections, and in my experience these tags sit in empty sections for years without doing anything. Whenever I've seen one it's a not even a section that necessarily needs to be developed, and several times I have just deleted the whole so-called section. They serve no purpose to editors and even less to readers. It is overly optimistic to think the tag will actually attract expansion (most usages are on low-traffic pages), editors should either leave a talk page note, commented-out suggestions, or actually write a sentence or two, rather than leave an empty section header and a pointless tag. Reywas92Talk 00:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 1978 in Australian television is an example of the questionable utility of this template. There, it merely serves to point out the obvious. Rather than being used for skeleton articles, they should be limited to articles that already have an abundance of content. Praemonitus (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is it pointless, its ugly to look at, and unlike other maintenance templates it's shoved right in the middle of the text. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This template helps nudge editors in the direction of actual adding information to the empty section(s) of an article. I do not want to see this template go. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence at all that these template encourage content builders to complete the section. Perhaps a win-win solution would be to set up a bot to keep removing all of these disfiguring templates, so editors who want to increase their edit counts with a minimum of effort can add them back. I suppose it's harmless enough if that's what people want, just a bit expensive on computer resources. But drive-by taggers can then tag to their heart's desire, and the bot can keep the graffiti to manageable levels. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Self-destructing cleanup templates is an interesting idea. Articles such as Gemmula mystica haven't benefited in the slightest from the presence of this template after three years, so not indeed purge them when they've had no effect? Praemonitus (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My workflow when expanding a stub is to build it out with section headers, then go back and section-edit each section with content. Having the template there conveys to the reader that the empty sections are intentional, and will have content at some point, even if it takes me a few editing sessions to get everything filled in. (I usually don't work in a sandbox because I like to add a section's worth of content at a time, and it doesn't make sense to go back and forth between the two.) —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could comment out the sections you have added but haven't developed yet. Readers got along fine when the article didn't have empty sections; sure they now know everything loaded correcctly, but having a header with nothing in it's not doing them any good either, and seeing some of the older stuff in Category:Articles with empty sections, I'm not sure why the reader should assume content is actually on its way. Reywas92Talk 18:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Many's the time I have seen a clear & compelling need for an absent section but haven't had the time to start it myself... The 'Empty section' tag is the obvious option to prompt another editor who does have the time & inclination.... Please do keep. Valerius Tygart (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't this just one detail of the standard Wikipedia Eventualists versus Deletionists disagreement? Invertzoo (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. What is the difference between an empty section and template? if you need a section written up put it up in the wanted pages list or something. This is so stupid when some one searches in a search engine and finds nothing in the - the worst example is the 500 BC page... admins should use some common sense too in such cases irrespective of the discussion ongoing here. there is a lot of difference in a page with some relevance being present to be filled versus a page just being there for some one to make a point. I would not want to make a page for every 5 centuries and put a page out there empty saying 500BC, 1000BC, 2000BC, just because the number seems round enough to look important but is of no use.Amit (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Amit[reply]
If you think the page is the problem, then send the page to AfD. The template helped you find it! -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pointless, for readers: they see that the section is empty, both the empty section and the template pointing this out is useless. For editors: they see that the section is empty. This is just tagging-it-for-somebodyelse-to-fix-it, it is not helpful at all. --Atlasowa (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under this theory all maintenance tagging is pointless. All clean-up tags are "tagging-it-for-somebody-else-to-fix." So I guess we should delete them all. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – 8 June 2024, 09:56 (UTC)
Bill, I might be inclined to accept your maintenance tagging argument if there existed a bot that could write three sentences of text and a footnote to fill the empty sections where this template is inserted. More often than not, the "empty section" template is an excuse for not removing a meaningless section header over an empty section by an editor who can't be bothered to write something and add a sourced footnote. Sadly, there is no plan, no WikiProject, no Wiki task force, no dedicated group of editors who fill these empty sections with meaningful text. These templates proliferate in the embarrassingly neglected backwaters of Wikipedia, and once inserted, the overwhelming majority of these "empty section" templates remain for years. If anything, it's the template itself that's "pointless." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is obvious a section is empty. All it does it make the page look disorganized and if a section is empty, it serves no point and should be deleted.--Astros4477 (Talk) 16:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite, does come across as obnoxious. If a section is empty simply remove it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "The existence of this template encourages editors to create blank sections that offer nothing to readers." Are you serious? How would this come off as obnoxious, this lets other editors know that a potential section could be made. Removing the section completely would be obnoxious as it doesn't give other editors a chance to expand on that section. — DivaKnockouts 16:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As an editor I may recognize that a section should exist, but not be able to complete it. The template is just a polite way to point out that help is needed. Just like all our other clean-up templates. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – 8 June 2024, 09:56 (UTC)
Keep This distinguishes from deliberately blank sections (which are rare, I agree, but a ((deliberately blank)) template would be much more "obnoxious"). Also, if there is consensus to not use this on mainspace articles, there is still quite effective use in project pages (e.g. TAFI#Maths), where its use is similar to the templates that confirm a category shouldn't be deleted when it is empty. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I've notified Bill W. his signature needs subst: in the datestamp. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Whereas the Talk page is generally where discussion of article deficiencies and proposals for remedies should go, we permit article maintenance boxes for editors to draw attention to important or less-obvious deficiencies in an article where a talk page thread might not be noticed by browsing editors. Thus, I can see some legitimate uses for this template. I propose there are three types of section in articlespace: content sections, further subdivided into standard and non-standard; and non-content. Standard content sections would be "Plot", "Reception"/"Criticism", "History", "Legacy", the deprecated "Popular culture" and the like. Non-standard content sections would be ones that are only useful or relevant in reference to this subject (thus Barack Obama has a section called "Osama bin Laden"). Non-content sections would be things like "See also", "References", "External links" and the like. I believe that empty standard content sections flagged with this template may be useful to drawing casual editors' attention to gaps in a particular article's coverage of key aspects of a subject (which touches upon WP:DUE); a History section for a corporation that has existed for a long time would be important. This may be more helpful than a general article maintenance box at the top insofar as it gives a better sense of what is missing, and also addresses the concern that casual editors may not notice a talk page discussion. Non-standard content sections, in particular, may benefit from this sort of notice. The audita querela article, for instance, lacks a section on Indian law, though there may indeed be history there. It is doubtful that a talk page section (though there is one) asking for whether there is anything in Indian law on the writ is very unlikely to be seen by casual editors. Empty non-content sections, however, should be universally removed as pointless; everyone but the most basic readers know about these and most know when to add a See also or External links section. However, it's important that this template not be used to contravene policy. For instance, forcing the retention of a "Criticism" section in an article on a public figure who may not have any significant criticism published about him would do this. Furthermore, I do not know how significant or common the aforementioned legitimate uses are, nor do I know whether many uses of this template in practice conform to the aforementioned standards. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep and open RfC on empty sections. While I argue that there are problems with this template, I believe this TFD has more to do with whether empty sections should be removed as a matter of policy or style, rather than whether this template is useful. As has been argued, an empty section may have the same effect as an article maintenance box: informing casual viewers by marking gaps in coverage of the article. This is like how red links inform casual viewers by marking gaps in coverage of the encyclopedia. Whether this template is appropriate depends entirely on the answer to whether empty sections are appropriate. Thus, I argue this is the wrong venue. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Magioladitis ~ especially now if, assuming i'm understanding it correctly, the template puts the article in an appropriate "empty section" category, whence it can be recovered and worked on, then have the template removed. I do, however, think that the suggestion above (by Ryan Vesey?) that the template be modified and used at the top of the article is well worth following up on. Cheers, LindsayHello 16:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — It's easier to remove an empty section than to add this tag. Besides, there is no reason to have an empty section in the first place. Indicating that more information is needed should be done in a different way. Finally, virtually all articles could have new sections added, so why be selective and add/keep an empty section and tag it for only some articles? The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 07:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For instance some pages like those for years share the same style and same structure. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - encourages users and anon to add content to empty sections that are there for the sake of consistency between articles on similar topics. YuMaNuMaContrib 12:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is very helpful to draw attention to empty sections (that's what its for). United States Man (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An empty section is visibly empty. There is no room for confusion or subjectivity. Labeling it is therefore unnecessary and just adds to the tag creep within the encyclopaedia. AIRcorn(talk) 01:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It was deleted from Spanish Wikipedia because it’s just useless, I mean, I am intelligent enough to tell if a section is empty without the need of a template. I don’t believe the other Wikipedia visitors are so stupid so they need this! —Fitoschido [shouttrack] @ 17 May, 2013; 03:10
I don't agree this template is completely useless. This template is not used merely to tell readers that the section is empty, but draws their attention in a hope to make them add content to the section itself. For example: say there exists an article about a book (which is notable enough and all that), but doesn't have a plot (which, you might agree, it should). Now an editor sees this (who is not personally knowledgeable about the book nor willing to find and add the plot him/herself) and adds a new empty section with this template. This draws attention of other editors and encourages them to add content to it. If this template must get deleted, I'd recommend it to be rather merged with ((expand section)) by adding an additional parameter like empty=yes that could render it the same way as ((empty section)) template. smtchahal(talk) 03:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The question if something is missing in an article should be discussed on the talk page. There is just no need to open a dummy section, just in order to place a template in it telling people that it's empty. The main goal of Wikipedia should be to be reader friendly. Such templates do not add anything positive to the user experience at all.--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, there are many sections that will self-evidently need to exist in an article, particularly for ongoing events, even if the editor may not currently have the proper citations or they might not even exit yet. There's no reason not to leave this template as an option if editors want to fully develop a page's structure, even if they don't currently have the text available. The reason why this template can be useful is that, particularly in an ongoing event where editors may be frequently making rather large edit and updates, it signals that help is needed and wanted in developing the section, and so encourages causal editors who may rarely edit that they won't simply be getting in the way of users currently updating or editing the page. --4idaho (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is what ((expand section)) is for, which can be deleted along with the section if nothing is added. Apteva (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serves no purpose. I came across this when looking at some highway articles and I shudder to think how many similar articles were written the same way, with a boilerplate for sections. Most recently I came here from a species article, with the same sort of boilerplate sections. Commenting out the section headings is far better than a template that points out that the section is (obviously) empty. What is next, a template that says this wurd[misspelled] is misspelled? Instead of adding a template to say that the section is empty, I would recommend deleting (preferred) or commenting out. Apteva (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It encourages people to create empty sections for "future" expansion that are often (probably even usually, I'd say) not expanded. I've seen it used in "External links" sections, and that's even more unnecessary. Where a section like that isn't already in the article, just don't include the heading until there's actually something to put there. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See, for example, this edit, tagging an external link section as empty. Apteva (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You example only confirms that it was not the initial editor who added the tag. The tag helped finding the empty section and it is editors' (plural) decision whether to delete the empty section or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Ryan explained it quite well. Garion96(talk) 16:58, 18 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. After a ridiculously long listing, opinion is clearly divided on this. No consensus defaults to keep, which is probably appropriate here, since a concern expressed by several delete voters (insufficient links) was addressed. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two albums on his own name plus a few other "projects". Does this warrant a nav box (okay, mr. Jaxx will say yes, but he believes that every cross reference is enough for a nav box, because it might save the lazy reader a click) The Bannertalk 22:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles Gitane Demone, Premature Ejaculation and Shadow Project are affiliated with Rozz, and do not yet have enough articles of their own to warrant their own navbox. IMO, there is enough of an association to warrant increased conspicuous connectivity. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN. Only 3 articles directly related to each other. --Izno (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't. Please read the above WP:NENAN. --Izno (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Your answer does not make sense with the question that was asked. I am familiar with NENAN and ANOEP, which are both only essays. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, that Rozz has solo and duet work ANYWAY, which can be made into stub articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still just 4 relevant links, all of band members. Not one album is linked (yet). Even this project does not warrant a nav box. The Bannertalk 10:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jax's approach appears to be to create a navgation box for every band or musician that ever was, and pad it out with loosely-connected articles to increase the link count, and create sub-stub articles on non-notables if needed to reach the quota. This just create navbox spam on articles, by providing an overly-prominent set of links to topics on the basis of minor attributes of each article. It doesn't appear that there is enough material on any of the bands to justify a navbox, but that's a separate issue. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply How is this SPAM if Wiktionary defines SPAM as:
A collection of unsolicited bulk electronic messages
Any undesired electronic content automatically generated for commercial purposes
An unsolicited electronic message sent in bulk, usually by email or newsgroups?
Reply. The concept of spam is much wider than that dicdef: see Spam (electronic). Regardless of whether you want to play linguistic pedantry games over the word spam, the point remains that attaching this template to lots of the articles gives undue prominence to what appears to be a relatively minor aspect of the topics of those articles --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable artist with a number of releases in his own name, at least three of which (Whorse's Mouth, Dream Home Heartache and Every King a Bastard Son are almost certainly notable. Seems like a completely suitable topic for a navbox. J Milburn (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Live in Berlin is also looking like it's probably notable. I'm yet to look closely at Accept the Gift of Sin. A discography article also wouldn't be out of the question, though it'd be long... J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Three albums plus PE, Shadow Project and Gitane makes for five articles. Because this went to full AfD, two of Williams' albums have grown dramatically. Also, WP:BRD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the article on Williams's short film to the navbox. This means three studio albums, a live album and a film, all credited to Williams, are linked using the navbox. I will do what I can to expand Accept the Gift of Sin (which would make two live albums), as I have a couple of sources. A discography article would not be out of the question, as he has produced a lot of material under a lot of different names. There is possibly other media worth writing articles on; I know Williams wrote poetry and produced visual art, and some of this may have received attention thanks to his music career. I certainly can't commit to that, though. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Thank you Milburn for all of your efforts. BTW, if this TfD has been open for over 30 days, why has it not been reslisted at all? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: This was at the 16 March TFD log for a long time, and instead of letting it languish there, I've relisted it here. Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on improvements to articles listed in this template that were taken to AfD, there seems to be enough here to keep this navbox. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - This latest relist is now over one week old. Does it still need to be listed at TfD without a second relist? --Jax 0677 (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting since consensus still isn't clear. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:07, 1 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.