The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 14:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Intended use appears to be to link to a team that does not have an article. Created in January 2023. It is possible that this is a valid template and that I simply misunderstand how it is supposed to be used. There are about a dozen of these unused Clycling data templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A template to link to a non-existent page? Seriously, we need to stop with these templates. These are simple links. Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then go ahead and change every cycling team link on all pages, making sure to use the correct name depending on the year. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be surprised, but that's how every other link works. Gonnym (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be surprised at how bad people are at correctly linking to articles using the correct title and characters, especially for cycling teams that change names over time. Unless for some odd reason you don't want to have consistency between articles, these templates are very helpful. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I still support deletion, even after it's been used on a single article. Gonnym (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard cycling data template for a UCI team. Links to a now existing page and is being used. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep, now being used. Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
That takes me back. Delete. At best these are uncited and at worst their organization like so is in the realm of cruft/synth. Izno (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles converted to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
2014 Winter Olympics men's curling game reference templates[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles converted to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
2014 Winter Olympics women's curling game reference templates[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles converted to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
If we needed such a side bar then yes, they should be merged and the new name should be climate change sidebar. However, I object to even having such a sidebar at all, see discussion here at WikiPRoject Climate Change talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#Do_we_really_need_a_climate_change_sidebar? (in a nutshell, my opinion repeated: as we don't have a "series" of climate change articles, a side bar for a huge topic complex with 4000 articles is not useful; same reason why we also don't have a "Medicine sidebar"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMsmile (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's already a {{climate change}} which {{global warming}} redirects to; so the complementary sidebar should be named "template:climate change sidebar" -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. Even on the climate change article, on the top, it states Global warming redirects to it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was keep. This template seems to be a case of improper usage getting in the way of usefulness. There is an overwhelming consensus to keep the template but fix the "bad" transclusions such as those indicated by the nominator (e.g. 14-year-old empty sections). There is no prejudice against renomination in the (near?) future if such old/improper uses are cleared out and someone still finds this template to be problematic. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 10 years since the previous TfD and our approach to building articles as works in progress has changed a lot in that time, with heavier use of draft space for that purpose, so I think we should revisit whether or not this template is necessary.
I propose we delete this template along with all 30,000 odd sections it's used in. There is no reason for articles in mainspace to have "empty sections" which are just a heading - they should be removed and should not be encouraged. Some of these sections have been empty for as long as 14 years. This is an artefact of the earlier days of Wikipedia when work in progress articles were created directly in mainspace, rather than in draft space, and should be deprecated for further use.
If we are to keep this to fix the outstanding backlog, then IMO we at least need to a) discourage further use of this template and b) make it easier for us to start doing that. The cleanup categories are pretty useless as they aren't sorted by topic (which I'm aware is a broader issue)
The only argument I can see for keeping this is on articles which have highly consistent formats, like year articles (with headings for births and deaths), but still there's no reason every such article has to have the exact same set of headings, especially if there's no sourceable content to put under some of them. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an ATD, we could merge this with {{expand section}} and remove empty sections containing the template redirect. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion/deprecation as proposed. Sound reasoning. Also, specific situations described for Keep are applicable.
I'm a soft oppose. You say "There is no reason for articles in mainspace to have "empty sections" which are just a heading" and "The only argument I can see for keeping this is on articles which have highly consistent formats". I'd like to provide one additional argument, namely, an empty section indicates to a reader that there is a significant aspect of the topic that isn't yet covered in the article. That may encourage them to investigate it outside of Wikipedia, or even encourage them to add some information to the page. Could there be more stringent guidelines on its use that would mitigate some of your concerns? In fact, I'm not exactly sure what the concerns are - what is the negative impact of this template? siddharthist (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re Siddharthist, and 9/10 of the Opposing !votes below: this completely ignores the fact that an unknown number of {{Empty section}} placements is not based on this presumption. There is no reasion to assume placement occurred for such a good reason. (See also my comment below) -DePiep (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal. Wikipedia articles should give due weight to all aspects of a subject, but I don't always have time to write about all viewpoints. This template is very useful to note which viewpoints are missing for a future editor (might be myself). It's more clear to do this in the article than in the talk page IMO. I used it for the 20th century in the high society article for example, or in the physical barrier section in the Iron Curtain article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I run this bot task to remove some instances of {{empty section}}. I'll run the bot again when I'm done downloading the most recent database dump. I'll also check to see if we can replace {{empty section}} with {{No plot}} in "Plot" sections, and replace {{empty section}} with {{unreferenced}} in "References" sections. GoingBatty (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal. Many articles are missing content that would be needed to make them encyclopedic. The template directly solicits additions, which is exactly what is needed when the template is used correctly. Skyerise (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal, unless someone can show that a large majority of the targeted sections would be truly superfluous. But I would rewrite the template's text. Its first sentence seems too flat an assertion, almost suggesting the emptiness is intentional. Something like "This article could be improved by adding text relevant to the section's heading." followed by the second sentence. David Brooks (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal. Some articles have empty sections because, while there is info available about the topics of these sections, they have not been added to Wikipedia. The template directly identifies an issue with the article, since it draws attention to aspects of a topic that have no coverage at all. I agree with David Brooks that the template could be rewritten so it more directly encourages readers to add information to the section. But removing this template, and the sections to which they're added, is basically like putting a Band-Aid on a large crack in the wall of your house and pretending that it doesn't exist. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but encourage replacement by {{no plot}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc. where appropriate or removal along with its heading where the section is not needed or unlikely to appear. It should mean "can and should be expanded", not just "this is empty" and certainly not "this section intentionally left blank". Support rewording to clarify that. Certes (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose the template is useful for those who are expanding articles to plan out the sections prior to writing new information NotOrrio (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose/Strong Keep The elimination of many empty sections erases any awareness of the existence of omitted information. Empty sections are useful for bookmarking major/key areas that are missing from articles in need of expansion. This template is useful in marking empty sections in need of content. SecretName101 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Hard agree with SecretName101. The template is very useful for the development of articles; it can indicate where editors should add content. Timothytyy (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I oppose (above) there is a qualitative difference between the "development placeholder" usage and the "as long as 14 years" statistic. Is there an argument for removing entire sections if they have been flagged for, I don't know what number to stab at, 3 years? David Brooks (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. At some point it's just clutter and not useful. Hidden message or talk page message would be more helpful and amateurish. Gonnym (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Very useful when beginning to completely rebuild an entire article. HoHo3143 (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.I agree that this template should not be used in most cases. But as the nominator says, they are useful in standardised pages like year lists. Something like 2023 in archaeology (which brought me here) is definitely going to have a "deaths" section at some point, and until then maintaining the heading with this template signals to readers and casual editors that deaths are within the scope of the page. Incidentally, I don't think it's true that draftspace has displaced mainspace as the place when it comes to work in progress articles. The data I've seen over the years says that draftspace is pretty much only used by editors who aren't allowed to create pages directly in mainspace. – Joe (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sure, for recent year articles I can definitely see the point of it - I was actually thinking of stuff like AD 21#Births, which might never have anything in it. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems to be snowing, so please consider my deletion nomination withdrawn. I still think this template is worthless in most cases but I agree with some of the comments here about rewording it and providing more guidance on the page. Thanks – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, filelakeshoe. Before this is formally closed, I have another comment not germane to the main topic. Some commenters, including me, have referred to the use of {{Empty section}} as a temporary placeholder. But surely that is the province of {{Under construction|section=y}} (which itself should maybe have an age limit). David Brooks (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Wikipedia is unfinished. This template is good for encouraging boldness, which will forever be what we need more of. small jarstc 23:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above (and maybe even a WP:SNOW close as well). DecafPotato (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This template encourages sloppy work by editors and provides a HORRIFIC user experience. gidonb (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion of the template and deletion of the blank sections. Unprofessional, helps nobody, doesn't provoke action, doesn't fit with the way we work. — Trey Maturin™ 13:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re Oppose-!votes. Most if not all Oppose !votes are based on examples of situations where the tag would be appropriate. However, that does not make all placements correct. Those could be 10.000's without any such good reason. There is no check. At least one could require a motivations for placement, like "WProject for this article set prescribes this section 'ABC', to be completed then". It is up to the placing editor to provide that info. Referring to the talkpage is also an option. Or at least one sentence should be provided. (All this to be standardised, or in template help/documentation). So, the template urgently needs maintaineble criteria. -DePiep (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People misusing the template does not mean a template should be deleted. DecafPotato (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should he used when there is an expansion about to occur, but if it’s left abandoned, there’s always a date stamp. 98.116.45.220 (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template is useful in articles in development, such as 2023 in climate change and others. In sets of related articles, such as "xxxx in climate change" and others, a standardized format of sections is needed, which this template enables before content is added to each section. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:DEMOLISH. A filled-out section is much better than an empty one, but an empty section is much better than no section at all. So until Wikipedia is finished, we need this template.
I'll add that I actively encourage editors to use it. I have seen on numerous occasions that content follows sectioning: When you add a section, editors will tend to fill it in over time. This can be bad, in the case of undue content like criticism sections, but if wielded smartly, setting up good placeholder sections at the start of an article's lifespan is one of the best things you can do to help set it on the right path for development over time. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
totally agreed, and Support keeping sections for the same reasons: content follows sectioning and encouragement. Also, it is better to an imcomplete article than one which pretends to be complete but isn't: its more intellectually honest. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also support deprecating and replacing with this better template
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.
which is more encouraging to editors, better user experience for readers, and remains relevant even after some content has been added when more is still needed. wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHEDJaredscribe (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removal does not prohibit building the article. By definition, no content is removed. Use the talkpage, or WikiProjects.
As I commented above, at 16:33, there is no reason to assume that each and every {{empty section}} is well-based part of the encyclopedia. There is no check on sensibility of such addition. The template should be placed with a required reasoning of the presence of that section. (BTW, we don't have similar option for say a paragraph). DePiep (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb: an empty section is much better than no section at all? I'm sorry, this is not usable as an argument. DePiep (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal, as I understand it, is to replace empty sections with no sections, so it seems directly pertinent to me.
I'm sure that there are occasional misuses of this template, just like there are of every template, but that's hardly a sound argument for deleting it, or even for requiring an explanation for it. An empty section is generally self-explanatory — its name indicates the material that should go in it, and the template itself clearly issues a call to add that material. An explanation requirement would impose an additional burden that has not been adequately justified. Best, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Many people use the template for the intended purpose. The correct course of action for places where this template is missused is to remove the template from the article, the incorrect course of action is to delete the template all together NotOrrio (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... and then remove the section title. DePiep (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Sdkb. A very useful template which allows one editor to make a plan of the article and write some of the parts he is more competent in, letting another one to fill the rest with content—contrary to what Trey Maturin claims, it's exactly the way Wikipedia has always worked and will always work. Ain92 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to cooperate like that by adding whitespace, both should go to the talkpage first. Except that that there is no reason to expect that plan to develop. This template must have a rule that a motivation must be added, or better even: at least one sentence. DePiep (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors don't read talkpages unless either there's some controversy going on or they want to write something there. However a template in the content of the article is noticed by everyone, which is a good thing (I can see how someone ashamed of empty sections might propose making the template invisible for the non-logged in users but that's not what is being proposed here). If you disagree with the plan of the page, just WP:BEBOLD and change the structure of the article as you see better fit. Ain92 (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Righty-oh. If this template is kept, I will, slowly and deliberately, without using automated tools, remove each and every single occurrence of it and the blank section in each article it applies to – as you yourself hint, the articles would not be harmed by this, and, indeed, would be visually and procedurally improved. Weird requirement of yours, but if that would make you happy then who am I to argue? — Trey Maturin™ 18:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a consensus to keep the template, removing all of its occurrences would not be a good use of editors' time, and might be viewed as POINTy and disruptive. Some sections should certainly be removed, but many should be replaced by {{expand section}}, {{no plot}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc. or simply left alone in the hope of prompting someone to write the section. Certes (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which I will do. But the vast majority, ~98%, will be uncontroversial removals of blank sections that have been blank for years and held in stasis by editors who want other people to fill out a section they are not willing to. I am entirely confident that nobody will object to the removal of these aged blank sections that nobody cares about and that any random editor who does revert me to prove a point based on this discussion without then doing the work to fill in the section that they want to exist but don't want to make exist will be the ones being pointy, which in itself is so very not the get-out-of-jail-free card that people seem to think it is. My error rate will likely be higher than a bot could be programmed to do, because I'm a human being, but that'll be fine too apparently. — Trey Maturin™ 21:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, any suggestion that a fellow editor should have any say whatsoever in how I use my time here productively or otherwise – an entirely voluntary project in which they are not in any way my manager – is inappropriate and anybody saying otherwise should be ashamed of implying it. — Trey Maturin™ 21:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be argumentative, but on what do you base the claim that "~98%" are "sections that nobody cares about" (my emphasis)? David Brooks (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sampled 100 random articles in Category:All articles with empty sections and 98 of them had been blank for more than 2 years. If anybody cared about them, someone would've done something about this. But nobody has. Ergo, nobody, at the first approximation, cares enough to do anything about this, although obviously people do care enough about making sure that this lack of being arsed is forever preserved in front of our readers. — Trey Maturin™ 19:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"although obviously people do care enough about making sure that this lack of being arsed is forever preserved in front of our readers", actually, I would care for the latter indeed to a reasonable extent. I think it is in many circumstances better for readers to be alerted of key context/areas of note on a subject that are missing from an article than be given a false illusion that the article does not lack key content. It is more informative for readers to have some idea of what important info is missing. SecretName101 (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trey Maturin "righty-oh. If this template is kept, I will, slowly and deliberately, without using automated tools, remove each and every single occurrence of it and the blank section in each article it applies to". This statement by you is effectively a vow to deface the project in order to get your way regardless of what consensus arises here about the usefulness of this template and its use. Indeed, as many have laid out here, there is very much a use and reason for such bank sections existing with this template, and your vow for an effectively-indiscriminate removal of instances of the template and deletion of the accompanying sections amounts to a dismissal of those arguments even if they prove the prevailing consensus. I think if you go through with such a pledge, you shouldn't be surprised if you face disciplinary actions as a result. SecretName101 (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal of a useful template. ɱ(talk) 21:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I personally use this if there are sections I know that should exist but that I cannot create with the resources I have at hand. The tag encourages section development and article improvement. TartarTorte 03:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For reasons mostly already covered. This is useful, particularly in list articles, to highlight areas (sometimes literally geographical areas) where the article doesn't have coverage yet. It's an invitation to edit and get involved, rather than treating Wikipedia as a finished product. Robminchin (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For reasons already discussed above. LemonOrangeLime (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Came upon this AfD after leaving the template in East Dulwich#Local government elections which does have a {{see also}} link but no other material. Wasn't 100% certain if that's the right template to use but I don't know of/didn't find any other options. At the very least, I don't think deleting every empty section is necessarily the best most because I'd imagine there are more examples like this.
However, I'm also opposed to deletion. I don't think the claim that WP is no longer tolerant of its work-in-progress nature is mistaken. I've seen so many bare articles made in mainspace in my time and I've only been editing for six years. Personally I think draftspace is underutilized, but I don't have the power to convey that to every editor I encounter, let alone convince them. And in that case, the utility of this template is still apparent to me. QuietHere (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I mean I can't really add much different insight for anything other then what has already been said, so per above. Tweedle (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose How are we going to tell people who see an empty section that it needs to be filled? There is a section there and people will be informed that such a subtopic exists and that it needs to be filled. I saw a link to this discussion while viewing an article. Even though I'm not very active here, it really needs to be kept regardless.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would anyone object to the template being reworded into more of an invitation, like "you can help by adding text relevant to the section's heading"? Or to User:Certes' comment above being explained in the documentation? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would make the wording substantially longer, which is WP:CREEP we don't need; the current wording is fine.
Adding to the documentation could be okay, if it is done concisely and does not add usage requirements that lack consensus (DePiep's idea that an explanation sentence at the talk page be required clearly does not have consensus).
Overall, there is clear consensus at this point that the template be kept. Further ideas for refinement can be discussed at the talk page, but there is no need to keep this TfD open. Best, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Comment on close:Primefac, your close seems to imply that the discussion reached consensus that any 14-year-old transclusions should automatically be removed. I do not see such a consensus in the discussion and would not want to see it used as basis for a mass removal. Any article that has had an empty section for 14 years has clearly been severely neglected and is in need of attention, but that info alone does not tell us enough to proceed. If the section has been empty because it's not a section the article needs, then yes, by all means remove it. But if it's a valid section, what the article needs is for the section to be written, and this template should remain in place to encourage that for however long is needed. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your interpretation is incorrect, and I suppose this will serve as clarification on that point. I said "such as" and gave an example, but also indicated that the removals should be for improper use. If you feel that someone is using this discussion to give some sort of tacit approval to blanket removal, I am happy to correct them on that. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 13:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused. (btw Gonnym, why not asked a speedy in some useful talkpage?) -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 13:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused. (btw Gonnym, why not asked a speedy in some useful talkpage?) -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Unclear what article this should be used on, but if found, this should be subst there instead of transcluded. Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Unused template. If it should be used at 2017 Atlantic hurricane season or another place, it should be subst there instead of transcluded. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Comment the LoCE is obsolete since 2008, so the active project is the GoCE and should use the GoCE templates -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Comment the LoCE is obsolete since 2008, so the active project is the GoCE and should use the GoCE templates -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
This template was tagged as deprecated over 8 years ago with the note that Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors should be used instead. Note that the template is currently placed in the body of talk pages instead of at the header like the newer template. This also causes the WP:Reply tool to break as it thinks it's a regular comment you can reply to. Gonnym (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the LoCE is obsolete since 2008, so the active project is the GoCE and should use the GoCE templates -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
(1) The name sounds strange. What is "persecution with" supposed to mean ? I'd expect something like "persecution based on".
(2) To me it makes little sense to create a grouping which includes non-ethnic forms of discrimination (like that against albinos), but excludes ethnic discrimination if the victims happen to have the same kind of skin (like Antisemitism or the Rwandan genocide). There doesn't seem to be scholarly sources that use such a grouping. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moving the title to "Template:Skin color and persecution" may improve the question raised on having "with" in the current title. Considering skin color is one of the markers and motivations for persecution, the template provides information on various related factors and existence among classes, cultural, geographical, religious, and institutional spaces. There is no antisemitism in the Template except the examples included related to the case of Ethiopian Jews who are black and Semitic themselves and other similar groups in Israel. For the case of Tutsi versus Hutu, here is what the Montreal Holocaust museum specified on the aspect of skin color Based on measurements such as height, the shape of the nose, and skin color, colonial authorities designated Tutsi as superior to Hutu. Petra0922 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is very OR at best. It just combines discrimination-related articles like [racism in country] as if it has everything to do with skin color. It doesn't. It encompasses ethnic discrimination topics as well in these racism articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the skin color parts of the template might be better as a category, as it is scattered across categories. The racism articles are already well categorized. This is an inappropriate WP:OR intersection of many kinds of discrimination. William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete, looks like OR to me too. Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
BRFA filed to replace {{Empty section}} with {{No plot}}. GoingBatty (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]![[icon]](https://akarinohon.com/text/taketori.cgi/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small}
