I merged in Template:Relevance (which really should have been Template:Relevance-sect which now also redirects here), since it served the same purpose, used the wrong message box type, was poorly worded, was undocumented, etc., etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Template:Relevance-sect should redirect here and Template:Relevance should redirect to Template:Importance. Please see my proposal at Template talk:Relevance --Waldir ^talk 15:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(This discussion has been copied from Template_talk:Importance-s, now that Importance-s redirects to Importance-sect --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I am a confused that this template and its "See also" both refer to WP:N which states WP:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article-content. Isn't importance of sections an issue of original research, sources, and undue weight? --Ronz 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned that it's this way for historical reasons and that it needs updating to be in line with current policies and guidelines. NOR, SOURCE, and WEIGHT seem to apply. NOT as well. Others? --Ronz 23:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment below copied from Wikipedia talk:No original research[1])

I like the idea of WP:WEIGHT being the relevant policy for importance related issues, but again, I don't know what to do about it. If I was king of Wikipedia, I would deprecate these importance templates, and create undue weight template "This section or article lacks reliable sources justifying the weight given to it." or something like that. --Merzul 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC) --Merzul 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank the editors who have helped improve this template. I created it to fill a void and with your contributions it now both looks solid and slick. Miqademus 14:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording from

This section may contain information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. to This section contains information which may be of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. Moving the 'may' reads better to me, as the section certainly does contain information - it's the importance that's debatable. ~ mazca ^talk 12:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

This template, along with its documentation should be moved over the redirect Template:Importance-section, so that this template's name is consistent with the other X-section templates (e.g. {{Cleanup-section}}, {{Expand-section}}, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooper4912 (talk • contribs)

I have deleted all but one revision of Template:Importance-section so you can make the move yourself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have moved the page. --Blooper (Talk) 17:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be possible to make this template into a smaller size, or at least allow for a "small" option, similar to for example {{Cleanup-section}}? These templates are often just to big to be used in small sections. Thanks, 05:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried to change this template to use the smaller ambox in the past, but gave up because I wasn't able to condense the text enough. Also, I think that it should always be small, not optional. --Blooper (Talk) 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Rotideypoc41352: Just wondering why this RM was closed as not moved? There are no objections, so WP:SILENCE would determine that implicit consensus is provided in support of the move. Tim (Talk) 02:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I also scratched my head a bit. Nine months later, nothing about this immediately jogged my memory.

As further preface, if you need to move the pages, I can overturn this close to "no consensus"—explanation below—so you can do the move. Nowadays, I'd comment on RMs similar to this one instead of closing them.

Anyway, I went back through nominator's contribution history and logs. When I closed this move, they had already accumulated several blocks for disruptive editing, and admins had revoked talk page access. Looking at their history now, many of their edits have been reverted. Combined with the blocks, their judgment in suggesting this move seems suspect. My guess is that I prioritized making sure this user was not using up any more of the community's time.

That is not an WP:RMCI reason, though. The RMCI-adjacent reason is that nominator's reason had no consensus and no basis in policy, as far as I could tell. Template:Relevance's target was changed a month (and a half) ago. Before that, it itself had redirected to Template:Importance section for the past decade or so. The nom tried to change this and was reverted thrice by two different editors—perhaps the reverts and page stability factored into my close above.

Again, if you have plans for the templates and their names, please feel free to let me know if you need me to overturn the close to "no consensus". Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change to redirected, anchoring is valid. --5.43.73.144 (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence: If importance cannot be established, relevant content from the section is likely to be moved to another article(s), the section(s) anchor-linked, and content saved. --5.43.73.144 (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is used in article Diluent. {{Importance section}} doesn't contain it in order for displaying text of reason stated for disputing relevance of section. --5.43.73.144 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition for correcting the problem (code for at end of parameter |issue=): {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<br />'''''Reason''':'' {{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}} --5.43.73.144 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]