Template talk:Expand

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:

Add the template {{Expansion}} to the article or its discussion page. (Consensus is not yet reached on which is preferred. See discussion here and Wikipedia:Template locations.)
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:

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

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)[reply]

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. R adiant _>|< 13:05, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, at the moment it is — I've reworded it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]