Template talk:Importance-section

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merge[edit]

I merged in Template:Relevance (which really should have been Template:Relevance-sect which now also redirects here), since it served the same purpose, used the wrong message box type, was poorly worded, was undocumented, etc., etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Template:Relevance-sect should redirect here and Template:Relevance should redirect to Template:Importance. Please see my proposal at Template talk:Relevance --Waldir talk 15:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

But isn't importance completely difference than WP:N?[edit]

(This discussion has been copied from Template_talk:Importance-s, now that Importance-s redirects to Importance-sect --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

I am a confused that this template and its "See also" both refer to WP:N which states WP:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article-content. Isn't importance of sections an issue of original research, sources, and undue weight? --Ronz 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've learned that it's this way for historical reasons and that it needs updating to be in line with current policies and guidelines. NOR, SOURCE, and WEIGHT seem to apply. NOT as well. Others? --Ronz 23:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(Comment below copied from Wikipedia talk:No original research[1])

I like the idea of WP:WEIGHT being the relevant policy for importance related issues, but again, I don't know what to do about it. If I was king of Wikipedia, I would deprecate these importance templates, and create undue weight template "This section or article lacks reliable sources justifying the weight given to it." or something like that. --Merzul 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC) --Merzul 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I'd like to thank the editors who have helped improve this template. I created it to fill a void and with your contributions it now both looks solid and slick. Miqademus 14:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Slight re-word[edit]

I changed the wording from

This section may contain information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. to This section contains information which may be of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. Moving the 'may' reads better to me, as the section certainly does contain information - it's the importance that's debatable. ~ mazca talk 12:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Move to {{Importance-section}}[edit]

{{editprotected}}

This template, along with its documentation should be moved over the redirect Template:Importance-section, so that this template's name is consistent with the other X-section templates (e.g. {{Cleanup-section}}, {{Expand-section}}, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooper4912 (talkcontribs)

I have deleted all but one revision of Template:Importance-section so you can make the move yourself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I have moved the page. --Blooper (Talk) 17:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Small option?[edit]

Could it be possible to make this template into a smaller size, or at least allow for a "small" option, similar to for example {{Cleanup-section}}? These templates are often just to big to be used in small sections. Thanks, 05:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried to change this template to use the smaller ambox in the past, but gave up because I wasn't able to condense the text enough. Also, I think that it should always be small, not optional. --Blooper (Talk) 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)