There are about 25000 empty sections on WP Rich Farmbrough, 13:04 29 November 2008 (UTC).

In July 2010, Yobot added tags to about 22,000 articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to automatically ad these, an there is n edit button with each section. Better to lose this feature? Rich Farmbrough, 13:04 29 November 2008 (UTC).

Yes, losing or rewriting the feature would be good, as the current solution is cumbersome and prone to break every time a section is added above the tempate. — Pt _(T) 08:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this will always edit a mainspace page regardless of the page the template is on.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:19 29 November 2008 (UTC).

In what circumstance is it appropriate for an empty section to be present at all? It's always seemed to me that the right way to deal with an empty section is to delete it. -- Smjg (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some pages are created as a copy-paste of the others to maintain the same structure. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So there are certain categories of pages for which policy dictates a list of sections to be followed to the letter? Would you care to give some examples? -- Smjg (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it useful in articles where {{generalize}} is applicable to show exactly what important topic(s) are missing, and perhaps get some editors to write them. Examples include Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist) and Rodney Stark, to mention just two recent examples. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good examples. I usually encounter this tag in articles about years to show the correct order of expected section: Born, Died, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you of a community discussion regarding a bot proposal. The bot would automatically tag new articles with matinence tags, such as this template. More details can be found at the proposal. Thank you,  Ⓢock  16:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured there must have been some bot adding these, because I found a number of incorrect uses that no human was likely to have added, e.g. [1]. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Quadrant: A disucssion took place at Template:Expand and at WP:TFD concerning which templates relating to a lack of content should be reclassified as content templates, and this template was one of the ones identified. The reason this template was identified is because the lack of content in a section is understood to be a major content problem with the article, contrasted with a situation in which Template:Expand section would be used to merely indicate the need to expand a section. Could you explain your reason for reverting? --Bsherr (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the period from the wikilink in the message of the template. --Bsherr (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a bonus it means we can block AWB users who fix it down the road </sarcasm> Really though, it's the simpler method that doesn't involve hours of effort all at once. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 10:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a DRV open. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here some thoughts of what someone can do when they find this tag on a page. There are two main possibilities:

• Remove the empty section as inappropriate or unlikely to have some content for a long time
• Add some text and replace the tag with {{expand section}}

These two things are straightforward. On the other hand, when someone sees an {{expand section}} can do one of the following:

• Merge the information to some other place and remove the tag if they decide this section can not be expanded further
• Add some additional text and decide whether keep the tag or not.

In both cases of course using the talk page for informing other editors is welcome. In to my eyes the first job seems easier than the second. Empty sections are not really needed unless are in a series of articles with similar content (e.g. articles for calendar years, sport seasons, etc.). From this point of view we should not track pages with empty sections and pages that need expansion together and should have separate tracking categories since they serve a slightly different purpose and can be differently treated.

Keep in mind that the long discussion about the, now deleted, "expand" tag focused on the fact that this tag was to board and that taggers should give more specific instructions to those who copyedit. A merge of empty section and expand section won't help this purpose. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be necessary if you do not provide a link to the image. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 09:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tra (Talk) 09:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could an experienced user make a article version of this that would be the {{stub}} to this template's {{expand section}}? 96.50.22.205 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not understood your request. --Nnemo (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The beginning of this discussion is on my talk page.

Here let's discuss the mass reverts — by Phil Bridger — of my recent changes to this template's doc.

What are the problems ? What don't you like and why ? By discussing our opinions, I am sure we can achieve progress.

--Nnemo (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you making edits like this on many other template doc pages. You are adding blank lines and spaces where none are needed; in fact, sometimes these extra blank lines contravene WP:LISTGAP. You are also using words like "hereinbefore" which nobody in this country uses outside a lawyer's office. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My blank lines separate things which are too sticked together, they give air. But, regarding WP:LISTGAP, my blank lines never break lists. It is the opposite : I often remove lines that break lists and that harm accessibility.

What is “this country” ?

I have noted your remark about the word “hereinbefore”. We will find a word which is both true and more common. Like “preceding”, “precedent”.

--Nnemo (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the “Usage” part gives only one use, the complicated use. But simpler uses — even the simplest use, with no parameter — are available. The doc says so, but in the following part, “Parameters”. In order to simplify the life of the editors, I had added several variants to the “Usage” part. So that the editor can choose what use s/he wants. But I agree that all these choices can appear complicated to the ignorant eye. We will do something simpler : we will show two uses, the simplest one and the one with the parameters. The editor will be able to make the combinations s/he wants, thanks to the part “Parameters”. And, speaking of the part “Parameters”, I will clarify and unify the “optional” labels on the parameters. Currently these labels are messy and inconsistent. --Nnemo (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latest TfD brings again the matter I mentioned 2 years ago and some people agreed back then. Pages with empty sections should have their own tracking category. I took the liberty to create Category:Articles with empty sections and I think the pages should not anymore contained in the larger category. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For next time this ends up at TfD, there's now evidence that Wikipedia is mocked specifically because of this template. When the same thing can be achieved with HTML comments, I think we really need to ask ourselves if this is worth it. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is mocked about many things. Take a look at xkcd sometime. I mean, I don't like this template either, but arguing to delete it on the grounds that some random blog has made fun of it is just silly. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some clarification regarding the use of this template. If a section has sub-sections with text but no text above the sub-sections (i.e. only text below sub-sections), should there be an Empty section template? See 2013–14 SHL season#Summary for what I mean. Heymid (contribs) 21:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so; technically, the section isn't empty if it contains sub-sections. {{Expand section}} might be more appropriate. DoctorKubla (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Expand section}} sounds like a better idea in this case, and I've therefore replaced the Empty section template in the article. Heymid (contribs) 07:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed inconsistent use of this template across WP; in some articles the tags remain for years while in others they are removed (along with the section header) in less than a day. Can anyone please point me to a WP policy or guideline related to the appropriate use of this template? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]