Template talk:Expand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Expand is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases. Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

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:

• {{expandsect}}, for marking sections.

---

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 July 13. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Overlap with stubs 2 Removed bad addition 3 Grammar 4 Talk or article page for template message? 5 Consensus 6 Purpose and instructions 7 template design 8 Wording 9 This belongs on main pages 10 Changes 11 No longer for use on main pages? 12 It is essential to put these on the article pages 13 text for the link to the edit page is broken 14 Oi 15 Template color 16 Talk space 17 Expanding Expand 18 Requested move 19 Why? 20 Date parameter 21 {{Expand}} and {{Stub}} 22 {{editprotected}} 23 I don't understand 24 Smaller template 25 Requested edit 26 Expand what? 27 Please place the {{expand}} template out of the included section 28 Edit request 29 Proposed major changes to resolve concerns expressed in TfD 30 Request 31 PNG to SVG 32 "Problem yellow" color 33 Polish interwiki 34 Space before date 35 Specific talk page section 36 Category inclusion 37 cross-references

[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)

It says on the template that more information may be found on the talk page, so I guess that it is implying that it should be on the article page, as it links to the talk page. Computerwiz908 23:24, 11 April 2007 (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. Henry^Flower 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. Henry^Flower 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. Henry^Flower 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 M inun ^(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. —Centrx→talk • 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)

Stubs are different from expansion requests. A stub is a short article—usually a few lines, never more than a screenful of text. Once an article is longer than that, the stub tag should be removed. An expansion request is a request that more information be added to an article that is already beyond the stub stage.--Srleffler (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why stub templates and the expand template are never used together. Consider it this way: all stubs automatically need expanding since they're short, and the different stub templates put them where editors with specific areas of knowledge can find them. If they automatically need expanding, there's no need for a secnd template (expand) ding more or less the same work. Articles longer than stubs may look like they're reasonable articles, but often need a push to make them more well-balanced, so they're marked expand to indicate that - while no longer stubs - considerable work still needs to be done on them. Grutness...wha? 06:30, 15 January 2008 (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] ツ 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)

[edit] I don't understand

What's the point of this tag? you can practically add such a tag to most articles on Wikipedia. I don't get it. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 08:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's to do with when pages are at certain lengths. If a page is "stub" class, then it should have a stub tag (usually around 0 - 250 words is a stub, but it's content driven, not number of words) and over that (again, content wise) once the page reaches "start" or "b" class, then the stub tag should be removed, but to bring the page to "a" class, the article should be tagged with "expand" until such a time as it meets the criteria to be "a" class.

--linca^linca 14:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, although I still can't understand how the tag can help an editor edit an article. When I see a "copyedit" tag, I know that the article is messy and needs some copyedit, but what am I supposed to do when I see the "expand" tag? It doesn't mean much. And the usefulness of an article is not necessarily proportional to its length. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smaller template

See discussion above, I also don't find that much use for this template. A stub seems good enough to indicate small articles but this... Either way, can this template be made much smaller? The same size as the stub notice for notice. This template is as big as one of the cleanup templates. The cleanup templates are important but this template shouldn't have to be put so prominently on article space. Garion96 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The template now looks so intimidating...--K.C. Tang 04:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested edit

{{editprotected}} Someone please replace the substed TfD code with the standard {{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}. Every page this template is included on links to the wrong section. For example, the one on List of characters in Storm Hawks incorrectly points to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:List of characters in Storm Hawks. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expand what?

I've always wished, when using this template, that I could just put a note in the template saying what sort of thing needs expansion. You can put it in the edit summary but many editors will never see it there, and it's extra hassle to go over to Talk to say what needs to be added. It's not a discussion I want, I want something front and center that says "this article is missing X, Y or Z".

How difficult would it be to add in the same code that's in templates like {{prod}}? --Dhartung | Talk 12:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That code already exists in expand-section, even. Proposed fix below, pulled from the TfD debate. MrZaius^talk 18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please place the {{expand}} template out of the included section

{{editprotected}} Please place <noinclude> and </noinclude> tags around the {{tfd}} tag. Od Mishehu 14:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we usually don't do that, so that the tfd discussion gets broadly announced. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does every page that use this template show the template as being deleted? Can anyone unlock the editprotect to fix this? Benjwong 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, to get the TFD discussion announced so that people can give their opinion. Otherwise many editors would miss it. But it will soon be removed since the discussion won't last that long by now. Garion96 (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

{{editprotected}}
Can an admin please add noinclude tags to the TfD template as it is transcluding into articles. Regards, Rlest 18:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Declined, see discussion in section above. Garion96 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed major changes to resolve concerns expressed in TfD

In the recent TfD, which I assume will shortly be closed as noone seems to be working towards consensus, several concerns were noted about the template. Editors calling for keep and delete alike stated the template was needlessly vague and that the template is rather bulky. Below is a proposal to fix both of those points and, at the same time, eliminate the needlessly astandard "section stub" from our jargon to increase the readability of our wiki. Please review and comment, but I strongly believe that the proposed revision to this template below would be a great way to make things better. MrZaius^talk 18:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Possible solution Note that the main thing that I take issue with about this template is its use in multiple sections within an article, much the same as my initial objections at {{sect-stub}}. However, looking at Help:Section and Wikipedia:Stub, I find fewer and fewer valid compelling arguments to use the clunky phrase "section stub" at all. I would like to make a proposition:

1. Preserve the Expand template, but make it clear that it is pointless to transclude it.
2. Move Template:Sect-stub over the Template:Expand-section, blowing away the huge bulky template that plainly should never be used multiple times in an article, as much as it distracts from the article at large.
3. Remove reference to "section stubs" from Wikipedia:Stub and replace mention of it in Help:Section with reference to the post-move template.
4. Simplify its use of Category: articles with sections needing expansion, possibly stripping out the arg - Don't believe it's being actively used, although I may be wrong - Was anyone actively stub-sorting sect-stub?
5. Alter the parent expand template to be article-level only, removing reference to sections and replacing the second line with text based on the similarly generic {{cleanup}} and merge back the "with" part of expand-section, which greatly increases the template's utility:

It is plain that no consensus is going to be reached by continuing the endlessly repetitive discussion above, but are there any significant reasons to oppose what I've proposed above? It would deal with the complaints by myself and others that the Expand template is unfocused and unclear, that when used in individual sections it is too large (especially when repeated), redundancy with sect-stub, sect-stub's use of wiki jargon, and that deletion of the template would interfere a fair bit the efforts of other editors. This would deal with nearly all of my concerns and nearly all those expressed by editors on both sides of this debate. MrZaius^talk 02:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please implement step five of the above. It is presumably non-controversial - No concerns noted in AfD when presented there repeatedly. Simple reword to call for action on part of template-introducing editor and duplicates the code from sect-stub that allows for the editor to concisely explain, in the template, what needs to be expanded. Also strips away ability to use this in a section, as again, {{sect-stub}} exists and is better suited for the job, dragging in a section-specific cat. MrZaius^talk 13:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC) PS: The cat is currently commented out, but should be restored

It's too wordy, in my opinion. Why not cut everything out except for the first line, create a page called Wikipedia:Article expansion that explains everything your draft of the template currently does (and possibly more), and link to it in the template? Gracenotes^T § 22:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't see it as too wordy: When compared with several other common cleanup templates, the above seems normal enough. That said, could remove "or request expert assistance", as that is suggested by the "more specific cleanup tag" - However, it'd be nice to keep it in there, as that's the most obvious replacement for this template in most articles. Policy bloat should also be avoided, right? Lord knows there's enough content out there in the Wikipedia namespace describing how to edit an article, how to flesh out a stub, et al. On a different note, even without changing the wording, the arg support should be added post haste - Doesn't make sense to have it in the daughter template but not this one. MrZaius^talk 22:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a slightly shorter approach that doesn't spend characters promoting other templates and, if missing, calls for in-template summary. Would this work?

MrZaius^talk 23:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe make this tag also smaller in size. Like User:Garion96/Sandbox. (note, I am lousy at templates so just look at it for size). Garion96 (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt too much, but I feel it important that we leave space enough for an explanation of what needs expanded, ala expand-section, or else this template is so vague as to border on meaningless. MrZaius^talk 23:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It can be less obnoxious and still have al the information. I also just realized what I was missing with your template. It is more directed at the people who place the tags, not to the people who (if ever) will expand the article. "Please post a detailed request to the requests for expansion or the talk page" should be "Read the detailed request at the requests for expansion or the talk page.". Not that people will do that though, they will just tag the article. Garion96 (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - Lazy editors who don't bother following up on the talk or requests page might, I hope, be willing to use "|This article lacks X" instead, if they get griped at when it's missing. There are certainly other ways to do it, but that much definitely should be done, IMHO. MrZaius^talk 23:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request. At this point, I'm unsure if there's consensus and I'm unsure what's actually being requested. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Three things should happen here, and these two are presumably non-controversial: {{Expand-sect}} exists, so this template should be made article-only, as expand-section. Also, we should fork back the code from Expand-sect that allows for a user to pipe an argument that expresses what needs to be expanded.

What requires some discussion is rewriting the text of this message in hopes to make future requests less ambiguous. There seems to be broad support from the TfD to make such a change, but little consensus on how to implement it. MrZaius^talk 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Whatever the outcome of the discussion above, which appears to have ground to a halt, could the phrase "or section" please be removed, as this template should no longer be used to refer to a section (section-stub should). Thanks! Verisimilus T 16:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

N Not done Looking through the TfD, many editors there said that this template was useful for tagging a section; both

Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

and

Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

exist as alternatives, and there is no consensus as to which should be used as far as I can tell. The main problem with changing the template, though, is at present it is clearly used several times to tag a section, and changing the template in this way would make it incorrect. Updating all uses in sections to a different template first would probably be a good idea (there are many uses in sections at present, so this may require a bot), but consensus on what to change them to first should probably be reached. --ais523 17:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - The only thing that I initially proposed be done right away was addition of a date and clearer language. Never really had clearer language to introduce, however, so just the date was added. That said, the larger changes still warrant discussion. MrZaius^talk 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC) PS: Note that during that inane debate, there were very, very few responses to any posts that suggested action. That consensus can be gathered around a change like this should not be ruled out, although it should not be carried out over night.

• FWIW, over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting {{sect-stub}} has been a major bane for some considerable time. Everyone assumes, because of its name, that it is dealt with in the same way as stub templates and is sorted in a similar way by the stub-sorting project. But it isn't a stub template and it's use would be improved (as would the stub-sorter's lot) if it was changed. If one is to b e redirected to the other, I for one (and I can think of about 150 stub-sorters who would probably agree) would very much like to see {{expand-section}} become the main name. Note that even at WP:STUB, the term sectstub is relegated to one line in the "See also" section. (Mind you, there are those who think that WP:WSS is a "Stub sect", but that's another matter entirely ;) Grutness...wha? 00:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts precisely - Almost nowhere in policy do we refer to section-stubs, "section stub" is unclear to casual editors/excessively jargon-y, and it is much more a cleanup template than anything like a stub-template. Echoed above in #2. I don't think there'd be any major opposition at sect-stub, given their willingness to move away from the word "stub" when I proposed the smaller version of the template. MrZaius^talk 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly support a rename to {{expand-section}}, even if that's made largely symbolic by the need to keep the current name as a redirect, for the foreseeable future. Text should be brought into line with {{expand}}, rather than {{stub}}. The trouble with "stub" is that it's indeed jargon, and what's worse, it's used in Wikipedia in about three different ways, only one of which has a defining document (the other two being second-order jargon artifacts, alluding to the first, but not defining themselves in terms of it). Alai 01:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

By which you presumably mean move {{sect-stub}} over {{expand-section}}, right? Btw, the text of {{sect-stub}} already does discuss expansion ("This short section requires expansion.") rather than stubs, because to avoid jargon and the half-assed definition of "section stub". MrZaius^talk 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

{{editprotected}}

Replace the text at the top:

{{ambox | type = notice | text = '''Please help [{{fullurl:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article] by expanding it.'''<br /><small>Further information might be found on the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]] or at [[Wikipedia:Requests for expansion|requests for expansion]].{{#if:{{{date|}}}|<br/>This article has been tagged since '''{{{date}}}'''.</small> }} }}<includeonly>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Articles to be expanded since {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:Articles to be expanded]]}}[[Category:All articles to be expanded]]</includeonly><!-- End Expand -->

With:

{{ambox | type = notice | text = '''Please help [{{fullurl:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article] by expanding it.'''<br /><small>Further information might be found on the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]] or at [[Wikipedia:Requests for expansion|requests for expansion]].</small> }} }}<includeonly>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Articles to be expanded since {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:Articles to be expanded]]}}[[Category:All articles to be expanded]]</includeonly><!-- End Expand -->

This in effect doesn't change the method in which the template dating is used, and removes the highly redundant sentence 'This article has been tagged since X month X year'. Since the template is checked by bots 'by category' and by the date parameter, the sentence is redundant and provides nothing to the template but to tell the reader how long it's been tagged, which the category already provides. — Moe ε 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought the dates were useful for people? I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that the prose is redundant to the category. They serve very different purposes and are often very far apart. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I often look at the date on the template to tell how long it's been there. The categories are hard to connect to the template and are at the bottom. So I don't think removing the date from the template is a positive change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Shouldn't expect the user to magically know that they need to refer to the cat or the source to get the date. This proposal would seem to impact nearly all cleanup templates, and quite negatively. That said, we could switch to more terse language, like "Tagged since: YYYY/MM" to cut down on template size. The relevant information would be just as easy to understand, if not more so to users with only cursory knowledge of the language of a wiki. I wouldn't have any idea how to read a date on the Russian wiki as is, but if we did this project-wide, it'd be a little more clear. MrZaius^talk 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PNG to SVG

{{editprotected}}

Hello, I just noticed that there is and SVG equivalent of the image used in the template on Commons at Image:Nuvola Green Plus.svg. Is it possible to change it over?

Comparison:

Current raster version

Possible vector version

The vector version could be cropped to the same proportions as the raster if necessary. Doo-dle-doo 21:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfectly valid request, however, with the job queue at 3.4 million jobs, I'd like to hold-off on editing a template that's used over 17,000 times. In a day or two, I'd be happy to make the change; today, the servers don't need any more strain. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The aforementioned cropping should occur first. —David Levy 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Problem yellow" color

{{editprotected}}

Please change this template from "type=style" to "type=notice". This template does not indicate a problem with the article's style or content, it is a request (notice) for expansion. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a green 'type=growth' that would work better on this template? --ais523 09:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The "growth" type was added without consensus and is being removed. Please see Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Is a separate "Growth" color necessary? and Template talk:Ambox#Removal of growth color. —David Levy 10:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 10:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polish interwiki

{{editprotected}}

Please add Polish interwiki to the template: [[pl:Szablon:Do poszerzenia]]. Thanks. Hołek ҉ 05:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Already done by User:Violetriga. --ais523 09:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space before date

{{editprotected}}

Please add. Articles like Anonymizer look a little terrible without it. — Kalan ? 11:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. You may need to WP:PURGE to see the results. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific talk page section

{{editprotected}}

Would it be possible to add a parameter to this template, allowing the user to specify a particular section in the talk page (per {{merge}})? It'd need a default of the whole talk page, to avoid breaking all the current uses of the template, but it could prove a useful addition (I certainly have a current need for such a feature!). If not possible, no matter. Carre 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - I added a parameter "talksection" that lets you specify the section by its title. It uses the anchorencode magic word, so you can type it in plaintext. Nihiltres^(t.l) 00:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem quite right, but it could be me doing something wrong. I think the # before the anchorencode is being interpreted as a numbered list, rather than pointing to a section. Carre 14:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. that was wierd, but I fixed it. Nihiltres^(t.l) 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category inclusion

{{editprotected}}

Can the category inclusion in the template be modified a la Template:Update so that the template can be used as an example in User and Wikipedia pages without adding the maintenance categories? Thanks. Libcub (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Something is wrong, the template is now spitting out junk afterwards: {[[:Category:|Cat:]]

Please fix. — TAnthony^Talk 06:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed by Graham87. Jon513 (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cross-references

{{editprotected}} I'd like to request the addition of a link to {{expand further}} in the "see also" section of the documentation. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, however keep in mind the documentation is on a different page (Template:Expand/doc) which isn't protected. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)