Page MenuHomePhabricator

Remove empty "See also"-section
Open, Stalled, Needs TriagePublic


This is a feauture request to remove empty See also sections. This also includes if it is the following:

== See also ==

== References ==

(i.e. only has a bullet, but no links, or content)

Event Timeline

Josve05a created this task.Jul 10 2015, 2:38 PM
Josve05a raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.
Josve05a updated the task description. (Show Details)
Josve05a added a project: AutoWikiBrowser.
Josve05a added a subscriber: Josve05a.
Restricted Application added a subscriber: Aklapper. · View Herald TranscriptJul 10 2015, 2:38 PM
Rjwilmsi changed the task status from Open to Stalled.Aug 5 2015, 8:07 AM
Rjwilmsi added a subscriber: Rjwilmsi.

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

@Josve05a This question is for you.

Josve05a added a comment.EditedAug 30 2015, 10:14 AM

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.

Liuxinyu970226 set Security to None.Sep 9 2015, 3:58 AM
Liuxinyu970226 added a subscriber: Liuxinyu970226.

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

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.

Cpiral added a subscriber: Cpiral.Jan 11 2016, 8:26 PM

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?

Restricted Application added a subscriber: StudiesWorld. · View Herald TranscriptJan 11 2016, 8:26 PM

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.

Alsee added a subscriber: Alsee.EditedMar 8 2017, 8:27 PM

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.

Alsee added a comment.Mar 8 2017, 8:28 PM
This comment was removed by Alsee.