Template talk:Expand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protected Template:Expand has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

Template purpose:

  • Notification to editors that an article does not sufficiently cover the topic, yet the article is not considered a stub.
  • Adds article to Category:Articles to be expanded

Instructions to add template:

  1. Add the template {{expand}} to the article or its discussion page. (Consensus is not yet reached on which is preferred. See discussion here and Wikipedia:Template locations.)
  2. Add description of what is lacking in the article on the article's discussion page.

Instructions to find articles for which there are expansion requests:

  1. Visit Category:Articles to be expanded or Wikipedia:Requests for expansion

Please remove the template from the article or discussion page when the article sufficiently covers the topic.

Related templates:


Contents

[edit] Overlap with stubs

There's considerable overlap in the application of this template, template:stub, and template:substub... --Joy [shallot] 14:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

its more like template:attention (considering the message goes at the top), but less visible. --Ankur 17:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why should this template go on the top? It defaces perfectly good articles. In theory stubs require more work than those in need of expansion, yet that message is less visibly placed on the bottom of an article. - SimonP 01:20, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

These days it's clearer - 'attention' and 'cleanup*' is for top-of-the-page screaming, stubs are bottom-of-the-page notices, while 'expansion' is for talk pages. --Joy [shallot] 15:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed bad addition

I have removed the addition to the effect that this tag should be places on talk pages. There is no discussion of this here. It is not consistent with policies stated elsewhere. It isn't even consistent with the other content of the notice, which includes a reference to the talk page which is redundant if that is where the template is located.

More importantly, this restriction is bad idea because it would hamper the growth of Wikipedia. Far more people visit main pages than talk pages, especially new and casual users. An emphasis on talk pages shows a myopic focus on the tiny number of regular contributors, and misses the potential user group. Only a minute fraction of articles have a group of regular users who visit their talk page - and they hardly need an expansion tag as it is already done or in hand.

The point which has been raised about templates and the mirror versions of Wikipedia is unsound. The main version should be our overriding concern. What's the Alexa ranking of the most used mirror? The mirrors will in any case benefit from the more rapid improvement to articles which will result from inviting everyone to contribute. Wincoote 15:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason this template belongs on the talk page is because the article namespace is only meant to contain information of use to readers. It has long been a basic principle that all information of use only to editors belongs on the talk page. See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages#Moving_templates_to_talk_pages. - SimonP 21:16, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

"This article, or a section of this article, is requested to be expanded." This is very poor English. How about "This article, or a section of this article, needs expanding." or "It is requested that this article, or a section of this article, be expanded." Shantavira 18:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I have changed the template. - SimonP 19:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the current template reads: Please [1] this article. Shouldnt it be "Please expand this article" and the word "expand" could be linked appropriately ramit 21:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk or article page for template message?

Talk or article page for template message?

Wikipedia:Requests for expansion says "...add {{expansion}} to the top of the article or its talk page.

Category:Articles to be expanded says "...{{expansion}} at the top of the article page.

Wikipedia:Template messages/All says in the 'Where it goes' column for {{expansion}}, "Talk."

Is there lack of consensus on where to put the 'expansion' template, or are the instructions on these pages out of synch?

(Cross posting this message to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion) --sparkit (talk) 03:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. The template itself makes fairly clear that it should go on the talk page, this also follows general Wikipedia policy of putting such request templates on the talk page. I've edited the pages that didn't fit to reflect this. The cause of this is probably not lack of consensus, but lack of pages being updated. The concrete "meta templates go on talk pages" rule is only a few months old. - SimonP 04:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, SimonP! That's where I'll put them from now on. --sparkit (talk) 05:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly lack of consensus. The template explicitely states "...this article or section..." . The clue is in the bit "...this...section..", which cannot be used on the talk page, as the section in question cannot be indicated without having to edit the template. ~~~~ 11:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think these should generally go on the article page, these are not much unlike the cleanup or stub notices. --Mysidia 14:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think this template should go on the article's page and not on the talk page, to increase visibility. Editors who visit the page will know immediately that expansion is needed, instead of having to go to the discussion, which may often get overlooked. In this regard, I think it serves a similar purpose as the "cleanup" template, in giving editors the go ahead. Chances are, if a user is going to the talk page to discuss the article, he or she already knows it needs work, making this template rather ineffective.

Putting it on the article's page itself would also serve as a heads up to casual readers who may come by a vastly underwhelming article and think, "This is the standard of quality here?" At the very least, they'll know that we are conscious of the fact that it needs work and that what they see is not the intended ultimate form.

-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 23:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I got alerted to this by Mel Etitis, who moved the template I added from an article to its talk page. I think that this expansion template should be used for the talk page, whereas a relevant cleanup template should be used on the article itself. haz (user talk) 16:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Wikipedia operates on consensus. Editors should not move the expansion tag from articles to talk pages en mass until consensus about whether this is the right thing to do has been reached. ~~~~ 12:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I have been moving incorrectly placed expansion tags for over a year, I believe it is your duty to demonstrate that there is consensus that this policy should be changed, not mine to demonstrate that it exists. - SimonP 12:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
The general reasoning is that expansion is for pages that are longer than stubs, but still in need of more content. Stub messages are small, placed at the bottom or articles, and not overtly a warning. It is illogical for the much higher quality pages that get the expansion tag to be the ones with the far more prominent message. If you look through the history it was I who originally created Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, so I do have some understanding of these issues. - SimonP 13:16, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

There's blatantly no consensus for either side and even the edit history of this template shows that its placing is somewhat disputed. Neither of you can revert it again today so I suggest you give your reasoning below in a clear manner and with some examples of similar templates. violet/riga (t) 13:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I have created a survey to determine consensus - Wikipedia:Template locations. ~~~~ 13:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Survey's are not the way to go, especially when they so completely violate the Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. Please actually give some reasoning rather than restoring immediately to a poll. In all of our disputes you refuse to ever discuss the issue. You never responded on Talk:Matthew 1, but you started Wikipedia:Bible source text, you never start a discussion page on Bible verses, just VfD vote after Vfd vote, and you are doing the same here. Discussion is always best, polls should only be turned to as a last resort. - SimonP 13:31, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Surveys are the way to determine consensus. I prefer determining consensus than trolling on talk pages with editors who act unilaterally before consensus has even begun to be reached. ~~~~ 14:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
When a VfD fails due to lack of consensus, it is normal procedure to restart it, as the will of the community is not known, and doing nothing favours only one side not both. ~~~~ 14:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I've refactored the page and it would be good if you could both fully explain the arguments for both sides. violet/riga (t) 13:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

{{reqimage}} and {{Expandsect}} are expansion templates which could be discussed along with this one. 'reqimage' has undergone similar discussion, and rather than have this discussion several times, they could be discussed together. (Obviously, 'Expandsect', only makes sense on the article page. However, if 'Expansion' is to go on talk pages having a similar template that goes on article pages seems contradictory.) --sparkit (talk) 14:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

It is also an issue of formatting. If {{expansion}} should go in articles it should probably be shrunk to be more like {{Expandsect}} or {{listdev}}. If it goes on the talk page then it should be coffee roll. - SimonP 14:28, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on my talk page. I do not think that the current language supports moving it to the talk page, but concur with SimonP's reasoning for this and support such action. 119 15:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with having this sort of message within articles. After all, people don't browse talk pages nearly as actively as they do actual articles, so it might be a long time before someone sees the expansion notice on the talk page. Having said that, I recognise that it's dodgy all round to have excessive notices in articles. Can't we use boolean templates to give a different message depending on whether the notice is placed in the talk namespace or not? - Mark 03:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Surveys (and polls) are not the way to establish consensus. Surveys are the way to show consensus, assuming it exists in the first place. If there is none, the survey will be pointless. Discussion should always precede a poll or survey in an attempt to compromise or address people's concerns. Radiant_>|< 13:05, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose and instructions

I've added "Purpose" and "Instructions" at the top of this talk page to clarify both. Please modify if inaccurate or unclear. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 16:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] template design

An edit of 04:23 (UTC), July 17, 2005 mane the template less conspicuous. I don't think it is a good idea. Should be more prominent. --!Irpen 04:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the image because it was just... generic. Most basic cleanup templates don't have them, and abundant image linking with little purpose is a resource drain. You really think this big caramel-colored box is inconspicuous? -- Netoholic @ 05:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The lack of bounding box makes this template jam into following paragraphs, which looks really bad. Can it be re-bounded? I don't care what color the interior is. -- Beland 06:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You really think this big caramel-colored box is inconspicuous?
As of now, there is no box and that is what makes it inconspicuous. --Irpen 06:24, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Clear your cache. -- Netoholic @ 07:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

Seeing as there is no current consensus on whether this should go on talk pages or article pages, shouldn't the wording reflect the possibility that it appears on either the article or talk page, instead of saying "this talk page"? James 18:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

It should at least be grammatically correct; at the moment it isn't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, at the moment it is — I've reworded it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This belongs on main pages

This obviously belongs on main pages. It serves as a warning that the article is incomplete, which they may not otherwise realise. It is far more likely to be acted on if it is seen by all readers than by the tiny number of people who visit any particular talk page. "Editors" are not an elite group separate from readers, though some of them like to act as if they are. Osomec 16:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

It seems like people can probably figure out that the tag gets removed after the requested action has been performed (other tags don't include this instruction). Any opposition to removing the extra padding in this template, along the lines of, for example, template:POV? --Nectar 14:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead. Rich Farmbrough 21:06 19 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] No longer for use on main pages?

Why not? It seems that very often the main page is the best place so as to attract the necessary attention and interest. SouthernComfort 08:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense for the template to be on the talk page, where information about the proposed expansion can be found. —Viriditas | Talk 02:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a very odd way of looking at it. Probably thousands of people see the article page for every one that sees the talk page. Chicheley 17:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggest it is left to be placed on article or talk page according to editors' preferences. Regards, David Kernow 06:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It is essential to put these on the article pages

The purpose of these pages is to encourage people to expand the articles, so they need to be on the article page where they will be seen by many people. Chicheley 17:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This template is a tool for Wikipedia:Requests for expansion and Category:Articles to be expanded. The expansion template should be placed along with a description of what needs to be expanded, on the talk page. That is why it makes sense to place the template on the talk page. It doesn't make sense that an expansion template for non-stub articles is larger than a stub template, coloured like a talk-template, and placed at the top of the article. --GunnarRene 07:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I totally disagree. As Chicheley says it makes sense to place it where the maximum number of people will see it. Golfcam 01:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Then edit the template to make it even less conspicuous than a stub template, and move it to the bottom of the articles. --GunnarRene 08:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it's more likely to be seen if it's a boxed template at the top of the article... I'd like to understand why there seems to be an aversion to the status quo...?  Thanks, David Kernow 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's mostly because it's a talkspace template, which looks ugly in article space. Also, it's very large. If the template should be moved to the article, it should be made smaller and prettier, like the cleanup messages (Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup) or the stub template (Wikipedia:Stub). I'm planning an essay about how articles grow from stubs to full articles and split up. --GunnarRene 17:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If you can edit it to make it smaller and non-talkspace without losing (too much) information for the sake of newcomers, please do so. A link to your essay near the top of this and other expansion-related pages wouldn't be amiss either – hope you find it easy to write!  Best wishes, David 00:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] text for the link to the edit page is broken

Change the current

{{plainlink|url={{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|expand }}

to

{{plainlink|url={{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expand }}

so that the corrent text comes up for the link. SeventyThree(Talk) 22:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Change has already been made. --CBDunkerson 23:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oi

I've been moving this template from articles to talk pages, in the belief that it was supposed to go there. The wording really needs to be fixed. Joffeloff 14:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wording indicates that it may be found on an article's talk page, which is where some folks prefer it to be, while others point out that more people likely to see and consider acting on it if it appears on the article page. Hence the status quo. Regards, David Kernow 14:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I perfer putting it in the talk page. Yanksox (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen this template for the first time, and it's a shambles. What is a talk-page-formatted template doing on articles? Why does the template say that it 'may be' on the article talk page? Either it's on the talk page or it isn't, but there's no need to tell people in the template where the template might be. The whole thing is bizarre. HenryFlower 11:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm unable to amend the background colo/ur – anyone else? Is there anything else that would still identifying it as a talk-page(-only) template? Re the wording, by all means suggest an improvement that accommodates the template appearing on either article or talk pages with the possibility of further information on a talk page. Thanks! David Kernow 12:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I've unprotected it so that someone can sort the thing out. (Someone other than me- I do articles, not boxes). It really is incumbent on the people who make and add templates to ensure they're not embarrassing. It should look something like Template:Expert. HenryFlower 13:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've now simplified the template, hopefully to your and others' approval. Incidentally, do you know where I might find a list of the various classes these templates and tables use ("messagebox cleanup metadata", "messagebox standard", "wikitable", "toccolours" etc etc)...? Apologies in advance if I've missed something obvious. Best wishes, David 15:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. Help:Template looks like what you're after. HenryFlower 15:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Didn't see such a list/table from a quick scan of Help:Template, but will look more closely anon. Re the comment from Srleffler immediately below, perhaps you might revert the current version to one you approve (this one?) and then reprotect it...? Regards, David 02:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wherever this template is going to go, it needs to be formatted correctly. Article cleanup templates are blue. Talk page templates are yellow. This template is yellow, therefore it goes on the talk page. If someone feels it should be an article space template, it needs to be the same colour as the other cleanup templates, and ideally should be worded and formatted similar to the others.--Srleffler 00:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I amended it to use neither article nor talk-page backgrounds here but it has been changed again since. Sigh, David Kernow 02:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see it on talk pages only, unless it's absolutely urgent to expand. See Italy for a unnecessary example of this tag. I'm sorry to have to say this, but in my opinion it's a definite eyesore. GilliamJF

[edit] Template color

If this is going on the artile, shouldn't it be blue like the rest?--Rayc 01:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, to be consistent article templates should be blue. I'll make the change for now, if anyone has serious objections, feel free to revert. --SteveMcCluskey 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Have amended to "neutral" white background provided by class=messagebox as there's no consensus over where this template ought to be placed. Regards, David Kernow 16:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I see your point on the expand template. Given the dispute a neutral color is OK, although it makes the template almost invisible.
I don't see the point of your other change putting the neutral color on the expandsection template, which from its text "Please expand this section," belongs on the article page at the beginning of a section. --SteveMcCluskey 00:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point! Have self-reverted. Thanks for spotting, David 03:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added some conditionals so that this will display as a Talk-page template (full-size or shrunken) when it is placed on a Talk page. -- Visviva 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk space

I have replaced {{NAMESPACE}} talk with Template talk to make it work definitely, cheers Minun (Spiderman) 15:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding Expand

I notice that Expand list is not as nice as this template, so could we not do some sort of new template which uses the design for this but can be applied to different pages: {{expand|article}} or {{expand|list}}, opinions?

something like this: {{expansion/new idea|list}}
Please expand this list.
Further information might be found in a section of the talk page or at Requests for expansion.
Please remove this message once the article has been expanded.

or {{expansion/new idea|article}}

Please expand this article.
Further information might be found in a section of the talk page or at Requests for expansion.
Please remove this message once the article has been expanded.

--Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 11:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Seems a good idea – thanks! – but whither "/new idea"...? Regards, David Kernow 11:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Request: Move Template:Expansion to Template:Expand.

Rationale: "Expansion" is a description (of, in this case, something yet to occur); "Expand" a (truncated) request. David Kernow 11:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrxtalk • 04:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

I am starting to see the talk pages for hundreds of plant articles added to Category:Articles to be expanded. I'm afraid I don't understand the purpose of creating such a category and using it to tag pages upon pages of articles. How is this different from the existing stub tags? There are thousands of articles in Wikipedia that could be expanded, we all know it, there are thousands of stub tags out there already, and I don't think tagging thousands more with a "please expand this article" message is going to accomplish much unless it can magically cure us of the need to sleep, or the need to spend time earning a living (just a couple of the things that are interfering with my own time and ability to edit Wikipedia articles!). What good is a category that has thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of articles? MrDarwin 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date parameter

Should a date parameter be added to this template? I ask because Smackbot has added date info for expand tags. --Muchness 15:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Now done. Rich Farmbrough, 12:53 15 January 2007 (GMT).

[edit] {{Expand}} and {{Stub}}

I've noticed increasing use of {{Expand}} as a surrogate stub. There's no need for an article to have both T:Espand and a stub template, and we're probably missing quite a few stubs as a result of its use as a replacement for it.

I'd like to suggest the following proposal (which would have ramifications beyond this page, so I'm double-posting this to Wikipedia talk:Stub and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting).

  1. {{Expand}} should not be used on any articles with stub templates. A stub template already signals that an article should be expanded.
  2. {{stub}} or one of its subtypes should be used on articles of stub length - if further expansion is required once an article is beyond this length, only then should {{Expand}} be added.

Note that {{sectstub}} and {{listdev}} are not counted as stub templates in general terms, nor are they for the purposes of this proposal. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been deleting {expand} when I encounter it during restubbing (along with a description of why in the edit) except when the stub is good enough to not be a stub. I also have to question the utility of {expand} for articles that have assessment templates such as {WPBiography} on their talk pages. (Double posting this comment.) Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Strongly concur with Grutness (and with Caerwine's activities). The {{expand}} documentation should be updated to make this really clear. Don't agree with Caerwine's utility doubts; few people pay any attention to WPP assessments, while in-article fixit tags demand action. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 03:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec, and largely GMTA/FSD.) Concur about expand+stub combos. On "assessment" templates I'm not so sure; class=Start on some WPJ tag with humungous scope ('BIO certainly springs to mind) doesn't seem likely to be especially effective as an expansion request. (But one could say the same about {{expand}} itself, perhaps...) Alai 03:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I think both are of relatively equal utility, tho in the case of WPBio, probably only if handed off to a subproject or a work group of it. The WP assessment templates have the advantage of targeting certain editors, expand has the advantage of being in the article itself and thus attracting the attention of readers. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{editprotected}}

Could someone add the French interlink (fr:Modèle:...)to this template, please? Thanks. --131.111.100.155 11:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)