Template talk:Empty section

Actually Useful
This template is pretty useful actually. Not every stub has empty sections and many big pages (aka not stubs) have empty sections. 12:26, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we should restore it. 12:29, July 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes just addin' a template and a category would be of great help to a wiki team or users interested in addin infoto those sections.--

The time spent adding the template to every empty section would be better spent by actually filling in those sections. 13:30, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about the time wasted. Roa will add it with his bot. 19:37, July 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * [ @Zod,as Staw said,we'll be doin' it with our my bot..the template can either be somethin' visible like this fancy box:


 * {| class="collapsible collapsed" width="100%" style="clear:both; background:white ; border: 2px solid black; -moz-border-radius: 10px;"

! align="center" style="background:white; -moz-border-radius: 7px;" width="100%" | Empty Section
 * -{| style="width: 49px; height: 27px;"
 * style="background:orange; width:35em; color:black; border:2px solid black; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;" align="center" colspan=7|This page has an empty section. Please help the wiki by adding information in it.
 * }


 * or a small fonted sentence like this


 * This page has an >empty section. Please help the wiki by adding information in it.
 * (imo) ] --

The stub template is fine. We do NOT need this. 04:33, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Having an empty section does not mean that the article is a stub. 05:42, July 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * LDB is right,not all stubs should have empty sections--

Yes, a stub is when an article is missing entire sections, or if it doesn't have enough details in particular sections. The empty section is just another template that will clutter up articles. The stub template does the job just fine. 09:56, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

However, it's more specific. The stub template is more general. 09:59, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

No, it's the same exact use. 10:07, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

No, the stub template indicates that a page has insufficient information. If we having a missing section template, it will indicate that information is needed under section in the article its tagged in.

Wrong.

Stub template does just that. 11:11, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Template:Stub/doc No. 12:18, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

-talkpage bump-..--

Yes Lelouch. 05:22, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Well it depends. Usually, when there's an empty section, we just remove it together, as in "Appearance" is empty, then we remove the subheading Appearance. Some characters don't have an "Abilities and Powers" section either as a whole, instead of an empty section. 05:32, July 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes,but some pages with standard formats(like chapter and episode pages) can have this template and those interested in filling those summaries will can find 'em using the category created with this template.--

They'll check the episode stub and chapter stub templates, which are used to note this. 06:19, July 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * No,that was just an example to use the template and as 'everyone' else here pointed out : "Not every stub has empty sections and many big pages (aka not stubs) have empty sections"--

^What Roa said. 07:08, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Well, why not just put the "stub" template in those empty sections, since some sections are just stubby in terms of info instead of outright empty, like the "long summary" has a few sentences instead of blank. In layman's term, stub sections and empty sections would be too similar to be differentiated. 18:55, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, if there are many empty sections compared to stubby ones, then the template does have a place to differentiate. 18:57, July 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well,Yata the only way to see if there are many empty sections compared to stubby ones is by addin' the template itself,I say we just add 'em for now and revert those edits if we find there are not enough of those pages to warrent this template.--

Big pages with empty sections are still stubs. 03:27, July 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope,they're not.--