Template talk:Too many sections

Comment

I see that "considering its overall length" was added to this template after it was created. I don't see an edit summary and am not sure what that even means. Does this only get used on shorter articles. I had a similar template which was deleted and am curious how and where to use this. I put it on Michael Vick but am not sure if that is the right usage. Trevor GH5 (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've reworded it to hopefully better get to the point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Template:Condense → Template:Too many sections – "Condense" is not a clear and accurate description of this template's wording, and suggests that the problem is the length of the article, not how it is organized. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Hello 10:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The current title is very unhelpful in identifying the purpose of the template. --Gonnym (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link

The first link in the template directs to the "Headings and sections" section of the Layout MoS page. However, there is a more appropriate link anchor already available: MOS:OVERSECTION. I think it would be clearer to use the latter. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

"Template:Condense" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Condense has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 24 § Template:Condense until a consensus is reached. Mach61 (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

"Template:Condensed" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Condensed has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Template:Condensed until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 05:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Terminology

There is no such thing as a "section header". The term is "section heading". See MOS:HEAD. Please don't spread incorrect terminology in the tag. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 11:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe they are synonyms. For example, with e-mail they're called headers, not headings. Praemonitus (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not email. There is no reason for new editors to have to learn, unnecessarily, that two words mean the same thing on en-wiki. The learning curve is already too long without things like that. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 02:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:HEAD: "...table headings can incorporate citations and may begin with, or be, numbers. Unlike page headings, table headers do not automatically generate link anchors..." It seems they haven't received your input. Praemonitus (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

We are talking about sections, not tables. That page also refers to column headers. I see nothing about "section headers". Again, we never need two names for the same thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 05:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Which dictionary entry better describes our "titles" of sections? Header, or heading? ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 13:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Your point is too fussy for me to support. Sorry. Praemonitus (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I now see the template is only semi protected, so I'll do the BOLD edit I should have done in the first place. If you revert me, please have a better reason than Your point is too fussy for me to support. My points are better than no argument at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 15:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)