Talk:Cylcon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cylcon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Australia: Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal Cylcon is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Archaeology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph of a cylcon be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Australia may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Sectioning[edit]

@Srnec: I don't understand the point of your revert. It seems needlessly contrarian. Did I make the article worse? No. Just because you personally don't see the point doesn't mean it should be reverted. Clearly I thought it was helpful, else I wouldn't have done it. Section headings make the structure of the article clearer and make it easier to identify what's present and what's missing (and thus, where the article could do with expansion). In this case, it demonstrates that the article has information about dating, but not much else and could do with elaboration in those other areas. There is no minimum threshold that has to be reached before an article can be organised into sections. – Scyrme (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scyrme: I think placing a heading in the middle of three short paragraphs makes the article worse, yes. It is not the point of headings to highlight what is missing. Article structure is for the benefit of readers, not editors. Srnec (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It benefits both; the two aren't mutually exclusive. As a reader, I find sections like "history" and "dating" help me quickly identify the context of a topic, which helps me better understand the article. I often head for those sections first when reading, and I assume the same is true of other readers because history sections are usually placed near the top.

I don't see how the section heading makes it worse, unless you're saying you're saying you think it's ugly - in which that's entirely subjective, and I don't agree. Removing structure isn't helpful to readers or editors. – Scyrme (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven sentences. That is the article's current length. What reader will or should read any less than the whole thing in one shot? There is nothing to navigate in an article this short. Headings are premature. Srnec (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]