Template:Empty section is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
There are about 25000 empty sections on WP Rich Farmbrough, 13:04 29 November 2008 (UTC).
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).
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)
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)
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)
I don't think this template is appropriate for stub articles. You've already flagged the article as needing more content, so an {{ empty section}} template is redundant and most likely useless. If you think an article page needs more content, then add content. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please remove the period from the wikilink in the message of the template. -- Bsherr ( talk) 18:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
Here some thoughts of what someone can do when they find this tag on a page. There are two main possibilities:
These two things are straightforward. On the other hand, when someone sees an {{ expand section}} can do one of the following:
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Hey mid ( contribs) 21:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
I noticed a problem, the template says "you can help us by adding to it" when it should really say "you can help us by adding content to it". -- Toon Lucas 22 ( talk) 16:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest replacing "you can help by adding to it" to "you can help by adding content to it", to avoid confusion. TL22 ( talk) 14:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. – In my opinion, "content" is easily implied and understood, and "you can help" is more personal and effective than "please help". –
Paine 14:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Works or Publications or Bibliography doesn't address this, but it is common practice to have no text under the main works/filmography section title, then have sub-headings with the lists of works. See these Featured Articles:
Some headers exist to group sub-headers, and there isn't a need for text under them. The usage should mention that text under every section header is not mandatory. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The template looks ridiculously bad on any monitor that's larger than 300px and needs to be changed ASAP!
It looks crammed, like frightened from taking too much space and really, really bad and archaic. And it looks even worse when there's a normal, widespan template like {{
Unreferenced section}} before or after it.
The same applies to {{ Expand section}}, {{ Cleanup section}}, {{ Very long section}}. I also created edit requests on the talk pages of these pages. For a centralized general discussion please do not reply here but here instead.
They should all get standardized to one template-style - a reasonably good looking one.
→ They should be made to look like {{ Unreferenced section}}, {{ Refimprove section}}, {{ Original research section}} and {{ Summarize section}}.
Furthermore the new Category:Wikipedia section templates should be added to the template.
And lastly I just checked it on my mobile device and I can see the note neither on the mobile version of Wikipedia nor the mobile app. I'm not sure if this is an issue of the template or a technical issue? Because article hatnotes seemed to always show fine - for them it says "Page issues" (which can be shown/expanded by a click on it) - hence for sections it should say "Section issues". If this is a template-level issue I'll create a separate thread on that later so that this edit request can be resolved in its entirety right now.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 02:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Also, {{
edit template-protected}}
is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a
documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 05:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, I have now suggested that {{ Empty section}} (along with the preceding header) and {{ Expand section}} should be removed after a certain time limit, mainly because they don't seem to actually result in expanded sections in the long term. Please share your thoughts there:
Mikael Häggström ( talk) 12:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There should be a line break (<br />
) after the '''This section is empty.'''
and before the <small>
tag.
— Hugh (
talk) 03:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Why? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 12:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Want to remove "this section is empty' template Brahmatman ( talk) 12:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
subst:ETp|mis}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 22:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
subst:ETp|n}}
with some personal text seemed more appropriate.
Cabayi (
talk) 06:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would someone be able to update the default value for the date
parameter for this template to September 2020? Or even better, somehow have it automatically fill the current month and year?
ItsPugle (please
ping on reply) 06:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The date parameter filled in in Visual Editor is currently March 2020. If you look at other templates like {{ citation needed}} when adding them from the visual editor, they are filled with
{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}
which auto updates them. When you subst this template it uses the current date like other templates do but from the visual editor it uses "March 2020". Please fix this. DemonDays64 ( talk) 21:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Parts of this template are below the 85% recommendation of MOS:SMALL. I have made changes in the sandbox ( diff) to fix the ones involving the text – the date in the default small mode is still below this, but I think that can be overlooked for now, since that is the case in all small versions of amboxes, and should probably be changed over there. Test cases for my changes are here: Template:Empty_section/testcases. — Goszei ( talk) 21:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The autofill month is off by one. I suspect it has to do with the usage of {{
Format TemplateData}}
being used instead of <templatedata></templatedata>
. I get May 2021 instead of June 2021 in the visualeditor when adding it. Could there be another problem with it?
SWinxy (
talk) 21:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}
as the 'auto value', while this one inserts the direct string (e.g. January 2018
). Could it be just adding subst:
to the autovalue change it?
SWinxy (
talk) 17:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)I'm seeing a Template space warning ("Error: Please do not use this template in articles.") when using this template with the recently added param |find=
in mainspace, but not when using it without that parameter. The message is generated by
Module:Find sources/config, invoked at
Module:Find sources l. 89 ('Namespace check'). But it doesn't normally object that 'Empty section' is being used in the article namespace, but only when 'find' param is included.
As a test case, see Antisemitism in France#French Revolution, uncomment the hidden parameters, and Previw. Mathglot ( talk)
Something very weird going on. I tried to undo the last change (rev. 1039441321) with a simple 'Undo', and it's not letting me Publish the revert. I'm getting this error:
That kind of sounds like a TemplateData issue, but I don't see what that would have to do with saving the template, even if it is true (which it isn't, because the doc page looks fine to me). I don't know what's goin on here, this template needs a revert, and I can't revert it. Mathglot ( talk) 17:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! Based on a tangent from Wikipedia:Bot requests#"Empty sections" that are not empty, I think I could have my bot remove true empty sections with headings of "Bibliography", "Further reading", "Notes", "See also", "External links". There are hundreds of such articles. Looking for opinions before filing a BRFA. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 16:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Use the format: * [http://www.example.com/ example.com] -->
, then the comment should be deleted along with the heading.\n== *(?:See +[Aa]lso|Gallery|(Image|Photo|Picture)\s+[Gg]allery) *== *\n(\s|\{\{[Ee]mpty\s+section[^}]*\}\})*(?=\n==(?!=))
\n==\s*External\s+[Ll]inks\s*==(\n<!-- Use the format: \* \[http://www\.example\.com/ example\.com\] -->)?(?=(?:\s|<!--(?:(?!-->).)*--\>|\{\{DEFAULTSORT:[^\}]*\}\}|\[\[Category:[^\]]+\]\]|\{\{[A-Za-z-]+-stub\}})*$)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the TFD notice to the inline version (ie change |bigbox=
to |inline=
). This template is trancluded to ca 31,821 articles (based on its tracking category), all of which currently display the TFD box, which is quite obtrusive when just reading, especially on mobile. --
Asartea
Talk |
Contribs 20:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
|type=inline
; the |bigbox=
parameter should not be changed. I've fixed the issue.
Primefac (
talk) 14:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Would be even better if the internal "adding to it" link would edit the actual section. (Can't be that hard to implement, can it?) The section= template parameter is cumbersome, almost nobody uses it, and it easily breaks. -- 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:D89B:D583:DB5B:5880 ( talk) 16:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ichthyosis vulgaris is mainly diagnosed based on the clinical features of the patient mainly the physical exam findings and the personal and family histories. History of the age of the onset, and using family pedigree to clarify the pattern of inheritance can help to specify ichthyosis vulgaris among other types of ichthyoses. In some cases, it might be hard to clearly differentiate between ichthyosis vulgaris and other ichthyoses so your doctor can go further to genetic testing or to take a biopsy and make a histopathology examination but even this test is still suggestive and not specific for ichthyosis vulgaris. Hishamkj ( talk) 20:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Template:Empty section is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
There are about 25000 empty sections on WP Rich Farmbrough, 13:04 29 November 2008 (UTC).
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).
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)
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)
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)
I don't think this template is appropriate for stub articles. You've already flagged the article as needing more content, so an {{ empty section}} template is redundant and most likely useless. If you think an article page needs more content, then add content. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please remove the period from the wikilink in the message of the template. -- Bsherr ( talk) 18:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
Here some thoughts of what someone can do when they find this tag on a page. There are two main possibilities:
These two things are straightforward. On the other hand, when someone sees an {{ expand section}} can do one of the following:
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Hey mid ( contribs) 21:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
I noticed a problem, the template says "you can help us by adding to it" when it should really say "you can help us by adding content to it". -- Toon Lucas 22 ( talk) 16:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest replacing "you can help by adding to it" to "you can help by adding content to it", to avoid confusion. TL22 ( talk) 14:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. – In my opinion, "content" is easily implied and understood, and "you can help" is more personal and effective than "please help". –
Paine 14:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Works or Publications or Bibliography doesn't address this, but it is common practice to have no text under the main works/filmography section title, then have sub-headings with the lists of works. See these Featured Articles:
Some headers exist to group sub-headers, and there isn't a need for text under them. The usage should mention that text under every section header is not mandatory. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The template looks ridiculously bad on any monitor that's larger than 300px and needs to be changed ASAP!
It looks crammed, like frightened from taking too much space and really, really bad and archaic. And it looks even worse when there's a normal, widespan template like {{
Unreferenced section}} before or after it.
The same applies to {{ Expand section}}, {{ Cleanup section}}, {{ Very long section}}. I also created edit requests on the talk pages of these pages. For a centralized general discussion please do not reply here but here instead.
They should all get standardized to one template-style - a reasonably good looking one.
→ They should be made to look like {{ Unreferenced section}}, {{ Refimprove section}}, {{ Original research section}} and {{ Summarize section}}.
Furthermore the new Category:Wikipedia section templates should be added to the template.
And lastly I just checked it on my mobile device and I can see the note neither on the mobile version of Wikipedia nor the mobile app. I'm not sure if this is an issue of the template or a technical issue? Because article hatnotes seemed to always show fine - for them it says "Page issues" (which can be shown/expanded by a click on it) - hence for sections it should say "Section issues". If this is a template-level issue I'll create a separate thread on that later so that this edit request can be resolved in its entirety right now.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 02:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Also, {{
edit template-protected}}
is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a
documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 05:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, I have now suggested that {{ Empty section}} (along with the preceding header) and {{ Expand section}} should be removed after a certain time limit, mainly because they don't seem to actually result in expanded sections in the long term. Please share your thoughts there:
Mikael Häggström ( talk) 12:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There should be a line break (<br />
) after the '''This section is empty.'''
and before the <small>
tag.
— Hugh (
talk) 03:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Why? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 12:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Want to remove "this section is empty' template Brahmatman ( talk) 12:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
subst:ETp|mis}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 22:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
subst:ETp|n}}
with some personal text seemed more appropriate.
Cabayi (
talk) 06:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would someone be able to update the default value for the date
parameter for this template to September 2020? Or even better, somehow have it automatically fill the current month and year?
ItsPugle (please
ping on reply) 06:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The date parameter filled in in Visual Editor is currently March 2020. If you look at other templates like {{ citation needed}} when adding them from the visual editor, they are filled with
{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}
which auto updates them. When you subst this template it uses the current date like other templates do but from the visual editor it uses "March 2020". Please fix this. DemonDays64 ( talk) 21:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Parts of this template are below the 85% recommendation of MOS:SMALL. I have made changes in the sandbox ( diff) to fix the ones involving the text – the date in the default small mode is still below this, but I think that can be overlooked for now, since that is the case in all small versions of amboxes, and should probably be changed over there. Test cases for my changes are here: Template:Empty_section/testcases. — Goszei ( talk) 21:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The autofill month is off by one. I suspect it has to do with the usage of {{
Format TemplateData}}
being used instead of <templatedata></templatedata>
. I get May 2021 instead of June 2021 in the visualeditor when adding it. Could there be another problem with it?
SWinxy (
talk) 21:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}
as the 'auto value', while this one inserts the direct string (e.g. January 2018
). Could it be just adding subst:
to the autovalue change it?
SWinxy (
talk) 17:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)I'm seeing a Template space warning ("Error: Please do not use this template in articles.") when using this template with the recently added param |find=
in mainspace, but not when using it without that parameter. The message is generated by
Module:Find sources/config, invoked at
Module:Find sources l. 89 ('Namespace check'). But it doesn't normally object that 'Empty section' is being used in the article namespace, but only when 'find' param is included.
As a test case, see Antisemitism in France#French Revolution, uncomment the hidden parameters, and Previw. Mathglot ( talk)
Something very weird going on. I tried to undo the last change (rev. 1039441321) with a simple 'Undo', and it's not letting me Publish the revert. I'm getting this error:
That kind of sounds like a TemplateData issue, but I don't see what that would have to do with saving the template, even if it is true (which it isn't, because the doc page looks fine to me). I don't know what's goin on here, this template needs a revert, and I can't revert it. Mathglot ( talk) 17:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! Based on a tangent from Wikipedia:Bot requests#"Empty sections" that are not empty, I think I could have my bot remove true empty sections with headings of "Bibliography", "Further reading", "Notes", "See also", "External links". There are hundreds of such articles. Looking for opinions before filing a BRFA. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 16:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Use the format: * [http://www.example.com/ example.com] -->
, then the comment should be deleted along with the heading.\n== *(?:See +[Aa]lso|Gallery|(Image|Photo|Picture)\s+[Gg]allery) *== *\n(\s|\{\{[Ee]mpty\s+section[^}]*\}\})*(?=\n==(?!=))
\n==\s*External\s+[Ll]inks\s*==(\n<!-- Use the format: \* \[http://www\.example\.com/ example\.com\] -->)?(?=(?:\s|<!--(?:(?!-->).)*--\>|\{\{DEFAULTSORT:[^\}]*\}\}|\[\[Category:[^\]]+\]\]|\{\{[A-Za-z-]+-stub\}})*$)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the TFD notice to the inline version (ie change |bigbox=
to |inline=
). This template is trancluded to ca 31,821 articles (based on its tracking category), all of which currently display the TFD box, which is quite obtrusive when just reading, especially on mobile. --
Asartea
Talk |
Contribs 20:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
|type=inline
; the |bigbox=
parameter should not be changed. I've fixed the issue.
Primefac (
talk) 14:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Would be even better if the internal "adding to it" link would edit the actual section. (Can't be that hard to implement, can it?) The section= template parameter is cumbersome, almost nobody uses it, and it easily breaks. -- 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:D89B:D583:DB5B:5880 ( talk) 16:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ichthyosis vulgaris is mainly diagnosed based on the clinical features of the patient mainly the physical exam findings and the personal and family histories. History of the age of the onset, and using family pedigree to clarify the pattern of inheritance can help to specify ichthyosis vulgaris among other types of ichthyoses. In some cases, it might be hard to clearly differentiate between ichthyosis vulgaris and other ichthyoses so your doctor can go further to genetic testing or to take a biopsy and make a histopathology examination but even this test is still suggestive and not specific for ichthyosis vulgaris. Hishamkj ( talk) 20:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)