Template talk:Sections

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

When to use this template[edit]

I've noticed this template has been applied to some very short articles such as Jean Herauld Gourville and Pietro Badoglio. Would articles that short really benefit from the use of sections? Kaldari 03:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

One need not go overboard. It would be sufficient to add sections like "Life" and "Career", for example. (In fact, I've used sections on articles shorter than these!) I just thought that dividing these article into a few sections would improve their appearance (that is, make them look more like typical Wikipedia articles). Ultimately, though, the sections template is just a suggestion; you can remove it if you disagree.
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 04:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
In short articles, where only two or three sections would be possible at most, wouldn't it be more productive to just go ahead and add the section headers rather than this template? It seems like it would take about the same amount of time. Kaldari 04:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, in some cases I have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in the topic, so actually editing the article would be out of the question. However, if a cursory glance suggests that additional sections are needed, then I see no reason why the template could not be added. Nonetheless, BASED ON CERTAIN SNIDE REMARKS I'VE SEEN IN EDIT SUMMARYS in response to this template, others apparently do not agree.

    And anyway, the purpose of a template is to draw attention to an article when you're either too lazy or too disinterested to work on it yourself. Would it be preferable to simply take a devil-may-care attitude and ignore certain articles that might otherwise need attention? (E.g., "Not my area, TO HELL WITH IT!"—hardly a productive attitude.) (Well, if folks keep insulting me in edit summaries, I may do just that. This is one reason why I rarely go on random editing jaunts.)

    It might be worth mentioning Wikipedia policy about introductory material. This is one standard I use for determining whether or not additional sections are needed. Most articles should have a separate lead section that explains the material:

    Unless an article is very short, it should start with a lead section comprising one or more introductory paragraphs.

    Normally, the first paragraph clearly explains the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail to follow. If further introductory material is needed before the first section, this can be covered in subsequent paragraphs. Introductions to biographical articles commonly double as summaries, listing the best-known achievements of the subject.

    The lead is automatically followed by a table of contents, unless a user has selected the option of not viewing tables of contents. The first section follows the table of contents.

    -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 07:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk page[edit]

I think that if this template is to appear anywhere, then it should go on an articles talk page as it is addressing editors not readers of an article. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly so, but the de facto standard right now is to place these maintenance templates on the articles themselves (see Category:Articles needing sections for a quick example). It should probably be debated wiki-wide if that is to change rather than unilaterally changing the instructions on one template. Imho. --kingboyk 07:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
One use of the tags is to put articles in need of attention in categories. Categorizing talk pages wouldn't make much sense. Dr. Sunglasses 03:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Disapprove on short articles[edit]

Not every article needs lots of sections. I've seen this tag added to articles which fit on a single page; it's ugly and really doesn't belong on the article page (except perhaps in exceptional cases). Of the first ten articles currently listed on "What links here" perhaps one could definitely be improved by sections. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)