This is a feauture request to remove empty See also sections. This also includes if it is the following:
== See also ==
*
== References ==
{{Reflist}}(i.e. only has a bullet, but no links, or content)
Description
Description
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Please link to a discussion showing consensus that empty see also sections are never wanted, I can't see this clearly stated at WP:SEEALSO
Comment Actions
I thought it was just commons sense not to have empty sectioctions like that. Just as External links. No need to have empty sections like those. But no, I do not have any policy supporting this assertion.
Comment Actions
I agree that we should delete empty sections like this but then again we have a whole template for {{Empty section}} so obviously some disagree. I think at the very least we should be able to do this as an Alert and let the user decide if it should be done or not
Comment Actions
As an aside, if there is a decision to keep the empty section then maybe AWB could apply the {{Empty section}} template; Of course both would require a consensus, but just offering that as an additional possibility.
Comment Actions
OK. So an empty section can be kept for naming purposes, and tolerated because it signifies build information that is not obvious because it comes from specialized knowledge source. Redlink usage and purpose supports this method.
But an empty section that has a standard section title?
This is not supported when we look at how an empty bullet is handled.
An empty bullet does not serve to signify that a list needs to grow, or how.
That build information is common knowledge at the help page for wikitext markup.
The software does not render an empty bullet on screen or in print, and they can be anywhere in the list, not just at the end.
The build information for standard sections is common knowledge at the manual of style.
Something like namespace aliases, perhaps introducing a $wgStandardSection might work?
Comment Actions
I think if this is going to happen someone needs to start an RFC or Village pump discussion on EnWP to gather some consensus.
I doubt the devs are going to do something like this without some clear approval by the community.
Comment Actions
I don't think it's a good idea to start singling out arbitrary section titles. Any empty section is almost never a desired permanent state. However it's not that unusual for sections to be empty while an article is being built, or when it's awaiting content, or when there is a debate in progress on what should/shouldn't be there.
When editing, deleting a section is super simple. However if I'm trying to save a version with an empty section then it would be extremely frustrating for the software to actively, repeatedly, and mysteriously wage a war against me. There are all sorts of automatic cleanups that would usually be convenient, but would be extremely frustrating when unwanted.
This comment was removed by Alsee.
Comment Actions
The previous comments don't explain what/who exactly this task is stalled on ("If a report is waiting for further input (e.g. from its reporter or a third party) and can currently not be acted on"). Hence resetting task status.
(Smallprint, as general orientation for task management: If you wanted to express that nobody is currently working on this task, then the assignee should be removed and/or priority could be lowered instead. If work on this task is blocked by another task, then that other task should be added via Edit Related Tasks... → Edit Subtasks. If this task is stalled on an upstream project, then the Upstream tag should be added. If this task requires info from the task reporter, then there should be instructions which info is needed. If this task is out of scope and nobody should ever work on this, then task status should have the "Declined" status.)
Comment Actions
Evidence of consensus to do this was not provided - checking WP:SEEALSO today does not mention empty sections. An article may be in the course of editing so removing a (temporarily) empty See also section may be unhelpful.
If there is consensus for this, please feel free to re-report and link to the relevant discussions.