Talk:Section (typography)

Background
I recently got a "message" (probably sent by an automatic robot!) [actually, the message is right here, in case you are interested] notifying me about a certain issue (ambiguity in a certain hyperlink I had just added, during a certain recent edit by me).

I had added a (wikilink) hyperlink (intended to point from one Wikipedia article to another), and a robot had detected a problem. The problem was, specifically, that the (wikilink) hyperlink pointed to a disambiguation page. It pointed to [the DAB page]: "section".

I checked, and -- sure enough! -- the Wikipedia article "section" (which I had linked to), is indeed a disambiguation page, and it points to several possible [more specific] "section" articles, including this one (<< "You are Here!" >>) ... that is, including Section_(typography).

Upon taking a look at this article (Section_(typography)), I was curious about whether or not it would serve well, as a [more specific] destination for that "ambiguous" hyperlink that I had just recently added.

I think that this article (Section_(typography)) might be a good candidate; (even in its present state); ... but IMHO it might be an even better candidate, in the future, if it were to be expanded to mention that one example of a "section", would be a "section" of a Wikipedia article.

At least two "possibility" ideas
One idea: "to modify ('edit') this Wikipedia article -- that is, to edit the article 'Section (typography)', to include a '== section ==' called [something like] == a section as a portion or 'subdivision' of a Wikipedia article ==."

Another idea: "to have a completely new Wikipedia article, with a title something like: 'Section (of a Wikipedia article)'."

Any comments?
Such as, whether this is a good idea?, and if so, then, which alternative is better? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the concept of a section is not something unique to Wikipedia. It's also not becoming of Wikipedia articles to go on meta tangents unless they are genuinely covered in reliable sources and proportionally represented. Thus, while it would be necessary to talk about Wikipedia in the article Encyclopedia, it would not be so much for example in the article Banana. There are some cases where a subjects Wikipedia page itself became the subject of coverage as well such as John Seigenthaler. Getting back to the topic, the concept of sections long predates Wikipedia and Wikipedia itself doesn't do anything remarkably different with them. I'm not sure what problem you are trying to solve exactly. Also, please be mindful of WP:OVERLINK and avoid wikilinking common terms. Dictionary definitions might be better served by links to Wiktionary. Opencooper (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)