Template talk:Expand

Template needs expansion

Could someone please put in <code> sections with the full syntax? Maybe something along the lines of:

To mark a single section to be expanded, use:
{{Expand|section|date=March 2010}}

Also, it would be a good idea to say that you should always include a date when marking articles. Thank you. --98.114.243.75 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How about a second round of deletion?

I missed the 2007 discussion, but I do think this is a useless template. All articles on Wikipedia are in constant need of improvement, most of them, expansion. This template is quite redundant. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Kill with fire. :) I never saw the point in this template. People like addings templates though so I don't think a second round would help, but one never knows. Garion96 (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be a third vote for deletion. This template tends to hang around on articles for years and doesn't seem to have any encouraging effect on expansion. - SimonP (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The template is protected, so we will need an admin to nominate it (procedure). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let's do it like this... One of you can write up a rationale, post it here, and I'll add the template to TfD. Fair enough? — The Earwig ^(talk) 21:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Rationale: "All articles on Wikipedia are in constant need of improvement, most of them, expansion. This template is quite redundant. Either we add it to about ~2 million articles, or kill it. That said, I'd strongly suggest - once it is deleted - to leave the discussion page, and copy the template itself to a subpage, as it is an interesting (if misguided) part of wiki history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Template:Expand Garion96 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: please note that it was decided to slowly phase out and delete this template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Opposition

"This template has been through the deletion process. However its deletion is being opposed." O RLY? By who? Where? Why? S*T*A*R*B*O*X (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The template that says that was created by User:Rich Farmbrough just before he placed it on this template. It has no prior (or subsequent) usage. The normal process for challenging a deletion discussion is deletion review. The {{Delrev}} tag can be used for that. --RL0919 (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rich Farmbrough that this template should not be deleted, and I have filed a request at deletion review. Immunize (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I have tagged the template with this notice. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.

1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
2. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions.
3. Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
4. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

Point number 1 is the relevant one here. Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC).

Template undeletion

Resolved

I cannot understand why, despite the fact that the deletion review for this template has been closed as "overturn to no consensus" the template remains blank. Immunize (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Because nobody had restored visibility of the tag. Did so a couple minutes ago. Amalthea 18:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge from {{expand-further}}

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 23#Template:Expand further closed as keep, but with a note to merge in here. This is more a mental note to myself to carry that out, but if anyone has any suggestions or comments feel free to share them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I find {{expand-further}} more useful than this template at article-level. (Note that {{expand|section}} produces {{expand section}} however.) Expand-further is essentially a section-level template because it's intended/documented to be placed only on the "Further reading" sections. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that {{incomplete}} is being discussed for a redirect here. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Article or talk page?

It's been asked before, but I'm going to ask it again: is this template strictly for use on articles, or is it acceptable to place it on talk pages instead? Of the 21,826 pages transcluding this banner, 3432 (16%) are talk pages. If that's ok then this template should use {{mbox}} so that it displays properly outside article space, otherwise we should consider getting a bot to move all of those talk space transclusions. PC78 (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering the wording it probably was designed to be exclusively on the article page. Gary King (talk · scripts) 04:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is any objection, I'll see about getting a bot to shift all of those talk space transclusions. PC78 (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. As best I can tell, it was always intended for use on articles. Going back to the very first revision in 2004, [1] it was at least originally meant for articles. Was there a movement at some point to try to move many of these templates to talk pages? I've come across other templates of this nature in the past that seemed to have been moved from the article to the talk page. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel that it still seems best on the article page. When it's placed on the talk page, it easily gets lost in the clutter of talk headers and WikiProject banners. This template should be one that demands action, not merely informs like most talk page templates do. Gary King (talk · scripts) 05:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that this template when used on an entire article is hardly informative—something that was raised repeatedly in the "no consensus" deletion discussions. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

By itself it may seem uninformative, but it carries a link to any possibloe discusssion on the talk page. It seems pointless for a template which goes on a talk page to have a link to the talk page, so it is clear that the article page was the intended place for it. What's more, it performs an analogous function to expand section, empty section, and stub templates (which are always placed on the article), and if it's placed on the talk page there's far more likelihood of it and stub templates being used together (which is specifically discouraged in the /doc and at WP:WSS). I don't think there's much doubt that the article itself is the appropriate place for the template. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Type

{{edit protected}} Please change the type from "notice" to "content". As I read WP:AMBOX, "notice" is meant for templates such as {{current}} which are strictly informative without requiring any specific action. On the other hand, this template highlights an issue with an articles content and is an explicit request for editors to improve the article. PC78 (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That's how I read it too, therefore  Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Please revert the above change per WP:BRD. --Bsherr (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I support the orange color as well. Ironically, Bsherr brought up the issue as a sort of WP:POINT at the TfD for {{incomplete}}. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Since there are several blue expanad-type boxes, I've started at centralized discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(article_message_boxes)#.22Expand.22_templates. Not much in the way of participation so far, I guess it needs a RfC. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Disabled edit request. I'm all for BRD, but it would be nice to have a rationale for reverting the change. PC78 (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm, that's not how BRD works is it?  Reverted Now it's up to the proponents to put the case for the change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The "case for the change" was clearly articulated above. The case for revert was not. Besides User:Bsherr, and possibly yourself (who either rejected or reverted this on two pages so far), I do not see opposition to this type of change, but I, User:PC78, User:Tivedshambo, support it here, and User:Hrafn supported it for {{expand section}}. Like I said, I'm fine with having a centralized discussion, but insofar no arguments besides "I was merely posing it for sake of argument" (WP:POINT?) and WP:BRD have been raised by the opposition. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to explain my understanding of BRD. I classify this as a "bold" request because, although it was partially discussed the venue was not really an appropriate one. Thus for someone who was watching this template, there was effectively no discussion. In such cases, any good faith request for a revert should be accepted, because on an unprotected template they would be able to revert it him/herself, and the situation should be no different for protected templates. So it is at this stage that the discussion should commence on this page and if/when a consensus arises the request can be made again. I hope this is clear. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that is how BRD works. I made a sound case for the change, and no rationale was given for a revert. We don't revert things "just because". There needs to be a reason. PC78 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

PC78, that's not correct. Here's a quote from WP:BRD.

1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.)
2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.
3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.

Hope that helps clarify. But it would be better if we could move forward by discussing the concerns I've raised, here and at the TfD of Template:Incomplete. --Bsherr (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse, and please read WP:REVEXP. If nothing else it would have been courteous to others here to have explained your reasons for wanting a revert. PC78 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's unfair, PC78. Two minutes before I requested the revert, I explained it fully at the TfD. --Bsherr (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You should have explained it here, though. Changing the "type" for this template is a seperate issue to the redundancy of {{incomplete}}. PC78 (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the same issue. By changing the type of this template, you're effectively merging Template:Incomplete into this template before the TfD has resolved. --Bsherr (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I explained at the TfD for Template:Incomplete, but I'll explain here too. Expand is presently used on articles as an invitation to users to contribute to the content of Wikipedia. It is sometimes accompanied by advice on the talk page of the article for how the article can be expanded. Its message and use is merely to invite expansion, not to identify that the lack of content is a major problem in the article. Changing the template to content type grossly alters the message of this template. As the ombox documentation indicates, the content type is to identify major problems with an article, meaning problems of which a reader should be aware. Template:Incomplete and, for smaller issues, Template:Missing information, are already employed for this type of issue. Altering Expand to a content type template makes its placement entirely inappropriate on most of the pages on which it currently appears. It also means that the function performed by Expand as a notice no longer exists. If you think Expand as a notice should not exist, you can discuss it for deletion (for the fourth time, and be aware that, only a few months ago, there was no consensus for this). If you think Incomplete should be worded more linke Expand, we can discuss that too. But merging Incomplete into Expand will change the meaning of Expand require individual review of each use, and there is no consensus yet for such a change. --Bsherr (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And as I've already explained myself, I believe this assessment of the template to be entirely wrong. This is not a "notice", it identifies an issue and invites editors to resolve the issue, hence it is a "content" message. Fixing this does not "grossly alter" the meaning of the template, and would not require any "individual review of each use" -- where are you getting this from? With regards to a concensus, there is presently only you arguing against this change. PC78 (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at the 2007 TfD? --Bsherr (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Content type means "major problem". That's right out the the ombox documentation. I'm concerned that, by changing this template to content type, it will no longer be useful for tagging articles that are not problems, but for which the template merely serves as a request for expansion. Do you have a solution for this? --Bsherr (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, as someone who was "watching this template", as Martin describes above, [2] I'm opposed to changing this template type from "notice" to "content". This and other templates such as {{Expand list}} are not intended to be "Warning" templates, cautioning readers that something is wrong with the article or content. These templates exist solely to bring about article expansion from readers/editors, and not to "warn" or "caution" a reader. It is heavily ingrained into the English Wikipedia community that the orange colour used for "content" type templates is a warning that something is wrong with the article. Similar can be said of the "style" type (for example, {{Cat improve}}), but it is treated as less severe than a "content" type. There is nothing at all wrong with templates such as {{Expand}} using the "notice" type. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right that this is an undocumented convention in en.wp. But WP:AMBOX gives {{globalize}} as example of content template, where the lack of information is an issue ("wrong" as you put it). {{Expand list}} is not convincing either way, because it's not a message box, just like the multitude of {{stub}} templates aren't. {{Cat improve}}, which is yellow not blue, is not mentioned in the guideline, and appears to have engendered almost no discussion on its talk page (on this or any other issue), so I don't think it's a convincing argument. Besides, categories are a marginal form of (navigational) content, so they could be considered a style issue as well. Also, {{cat improve}} was orange when created, so it's not clear how much consensus its current color has. This type of inconsistency is further exemplified by the existence of the orange {{incomplete}} template: blue (for "requires expansion") + yellow ({{cleanup}}) = orange? Tijfo098 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Cat improve}} is far from the only template using the "style" type, another common example is {{More footnotes}}. For more examples, see Category:Article message boxes. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The content type is used to alert readers to problems that impact the quality of the content. In other words, "be skeptical about the content of this article becuase...", e.g., it's not sourced, it's not globalized, it's factually inaccurate, it reads linke an advertisement. Less substantial issues are yellow, namely issues concerning style. Notices that do not identify problems with the article are blue, such as a notice that the article is an evolving current event, or suggestions for how to expand the article when those suggestions do not rise to being a problem (i.e. Template:Incomplete, which you are trying to delete). This isn't an undocumented convention. It's right out of the ambox documentation. --Bsherr (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed roadmap for templates concerning missing content/expansion

Here's my proposal for templates covering this situation.

	Missing content is a problem (content type template)	Merely suggesting possible expansion (notice type template)
Missing content generally	Template:Incomplete	Template:Expand
Missing specific content	Template:Missing information non-contentious	Template:Expand
Empty section	Template:Empty section	Create empty section and use Template:Empty section, or better, use Template:Expand and propose new section on talk page

As I've said at TfD and here, I believe this view of the use of Template:Expand is consistent with the consensus understanding of the template as indicated in the 2007 TfD, the village pump discussions, and most of the 17,000 transclusions of this template. To the extent that existing templates do not confirm to this, I propose they be edited. This includes changing language in the Expand template to indicate that they are only suggestions. There has been a lot of discussion in the past about whether the Expand templates are needed at all. I ask that we defer those arguments until after the templates are all clearly delineated. I also ask that the TfD on Template:Incomplete be withdrawn until this discussion concludes. Thoughts? --Bsherr (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree: WP:AMBOX states that 'Notice'/blue are for "Information readers/editors should be aware of" -- almost exclusively notifying that the article/section is about some sort of current event/recent death (see WP:TMG#Timing-related messages). The only exception I can find is {{All plot}}, which appears to be mis-coloured (particularly as {{plot}} is orange). This offers no consistency basis for wanting "Merely suggesting possible expansion" to be a 'notice'. The difference between that and "Missing content is a problem" is one of degree not type -- "suggesting possible expansion"='suggesting that the article/section has insufficient content '. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• After reviewing the horribly disjointed discussion which has been taking place in at least 4 separate locations, I find myself largely agreeing with what Bsherr has outlined above.

  WP:AMBOX states: "The choice of colour is partly inspired by the ANSI standard safety "Signal Words" and their corresponding colors: Danger (Red), Warning (Orange), Caution (Yellow), and Notice (Blue)." Just because some of the documentation at WP:AMBOX may be incomplete and not fully reflect some of the longstanding usage of types such as "notice" does not mean it is wrong for templates such as {{Expand}}, {{Expand section}}, etc to use the "notice" type.

  As I stated above [3] and on the RFC that was originally taking place elsewhere, [4] templates such as {{Expand}} are not intended to be "Warning" templates, cautioning readers that something is wrong with the article or content. These templates exist solely to bring about article expansion from readers/editors, and not to "warn" or "caution" a reader. It is heavily ingrained into the English Wikipedia community that the orange colour used for "content" type templates is a warning that something is wrong with the article. There is nothing at all wrong with templates such as {{Expand}} using the "notice" type. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I think the explicit "Description" of the meaning of the colours should have precedence over what "inspired" them. Otherwise the system loses coherence. Either we colour for severity, and explicitly state that we are in colour descriptions, or we colour for category (as the system does now) -- we cannot coherently do both (unless we want to introduce a messy two-colour system). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • But we already do coherently do both. Look at the documentation in Ombox, which explaines the differences based on severity. --Bsherr (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No we do not! Please read the WP:AMBOX documentation: "Amboxes are divided into various categories. Each category has a corresponding colour code." NOTHING in the documentation indicates that a more/less severe problem within the same category should be given a different colour. The only way that severity enters into this is in the original selection of colour codes for categories -- in that categories that are generally more of a severe problem were given more alarming colours. We currently colour-code for category NOT severity! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P)
        • Hrafn, it looks like you didn't get what I was pointing out. I said Template:Ombox, not Template:Ambox. Ombox uses exactly the same scheme as Ambox, but based on severity. Thus, the two systems do coexist. I don't think it's very far-fetched to say that Ambox imports a bit of Ombox's severity scale, and vice versa.--Bsherr (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I will admit I overlooked the ambox/ombox dichotomy. However, as far as I can see, Ombox also codes by category, except for the fact that it has two severity codes for the "warnings and problems" category. It however contains nothing to suggest that a minor content issue (or a minor warning or problem) should be recoded as a "notice" (which exists as a separate category in Ombox as well as Ambox). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Hrafn, there's our point of contention. I think a suggestion of how to expand an article is not an indication of a problem with the article. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. That's how Expand is used. Contrast that to Incomplete, which does indicate a problem with an article. Expand is tagged on thousands of articles not because the users adding it identified a problem, but because they're suggesting expansion in some way. If the templates were all merged together, how would one distinguish from a suggestion for expansion, and a situation when an article needs expansion or cleanup because it is incomplete? Or do you think this distinction isn't necessary? And if so, why? --Bsherr (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
              • Bsherr: I got involved in these templates because I was a regular user of {{Expand section}}. I use it, generally when I'm doing a major restructure of an article, for new sections that I can see are needed, but for which I am only in a position to write a bare-bones/intro. I would consider using such a template for a 'suggestion-not-a-problem' as template-spamming, as in any given article the probability is that most sections could use some expansion. {{incomplete}} DOES NOT indicate a more severe problem than {{expand}} -- merely equivocation between expanding ({{expand}}) and cleanup ({{cleanup}}). Further, neither WP:AMBOX nor WP:OMBOX, either in theory or in practice, give any appearance of having the category of 'notice' include the (in any case purely speculative) category of 'suggestion'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
                • If an article is incomplete, there are two possible remedies. The first is to clean up the article so it does not appear incomplete. The second is to add the missing content to the article so it is not incomplete. Is that not usually the choice of remedies? And if so, isn't it not deliberately equivocative, but just a recognition that the choice exists, and deferral to the user addressing the issue? Expand contains no statement of a problem, only a statement of a solution, correct? This is a significant difference between Expand and Incomplete. And, for the moment, assuming you're right that Incomplete does not indicate a more severe problem than Expand, why not make them distinct by making one a "problem" template and one a "suggestion" template? Wouldn't that be helpful? It would encourage broader use of Expand to make suggestions for improvement whithout branding an article as problematic. Or should the combined Expand only be used when the lack of expansion rises to the severity of a problem in the article? --Bsherr (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • (i) If an article is incomplete, then the obvious, immediate remedy is to complete (i.e. expand) it, this renders the equivocation contained in {{incomplete}} unnecessary. (ii) If the editor has reason to believe that expansion won't solve the problem, then they should use an appropriate cleanup template. (iii) If they have no idea what to do, then they are in all probability sufficiently clueless that I'd prefer them to either simply use the {{expand}} as the default first step (and have somebody else swap to cleanup after working out that expansion is infeasible), or to leave the whole question to somebody who does have a clue. (iv) "Expand contains no statement of a problem, only a statement of a solution, correct?" INCORRECT -- as I have stated REPEATEDLY. If it is not a "problem", then the use of the template is template-spamming. This IS NOT "a significant difference between Expand and Incomplete." (iv) There is no such category in policy as "suggestion", you just made it up. (v) Because your proposed distinction blurs the (too my mind more important) distinction between 'suggestion' and 'notice'. (vi) "Broader use" probably would result in increased, undesirable, template-spamming. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • First, I hope you'll bear with me. I'm asking you these questions because I'm trying to understand what these templates would look like and how they'd be used if your vision prevails. (All I really know is that you want to delete Incomplete, and you want to change Expand to a content type. But I want to understand how these templates would be used under your plan, and how they might need to be modified.) Before I get into my reply, I think you misunderstand me. This is what I mean. Take Incomplete. "This article is incomplete" (statement of problem) "and needs expansion or cleanup" (statement of remedy). Contrast with Expand. "Please help improve this article by expanding it." (only a statement of remedy). That's what I mean by no statement of a problem. All (or almost all) content templates contain both a statement of the problem and a statement of the remedy. Do you see what I mean? Now, if you were to convert it to a content template and delete Incomplete, you really should include a statement of the problem in the template, consistent with all the other content templates. I think, if you were to do that, you'd end up with a template that looks a lot like Incomplete, no? If not, how would you propose writing the problem statement into the template? --Bsherr (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm also aware of what AMBOX says. The issue here is that what AMBOX says does not reflect reality on the ground, particularly with respect to all the expand-type boxes. The AMBOX guideline sees little attention, so it's not outlandish to assume that it may need to be updated. I've encouraged Bsherr to start this discussion in part due to this observation. I need to think some more whether having multiple boxes with more-or-less the same text but different colors is the way forward. (Disclaimer: due to real life constraints, I won't be able to participate extensively in this discussion, but I'll get back to you on this before the RfC is over.) Tijfo098 (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Side note: there's also a discussion of revising message box design (including their wording) due to a large number of OTRS complaints about them. See Wikipedia:VPP#Maintenance tags. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• The "reality on the ground" is that, except for these two expand-tags, and the (completely-inappropriately coloured) {{all plot}}, all blue-coded templates appear to be to notify current events/recent deaths. The reality on the ground is that this colour is used, pervasively, for templates UNRELATED to "suggesting possible expansion". The "reality on the ground" appears to be that some editors are attempting to turn two mis-coloured templates into a precedent that quite simply isn't there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Hrafn, Expand is blue because Expand is unique. Can you name me another template that does not identify a problem in an article but makes a suggestion for how editors can improve an article? --Bsherr (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Then create a new category and colour for them -- green-for-growth has already been suggested elsewhere. But, for myself, I think that orange-for-content is not inadequate (as expansion is a content issue). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, but it's not a content problem. No other content template does not identify a problem, does it? --Bsherr (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
        • (i) I don't agree that it is not a "problem", if it is sufficiently an "issue" to necessitate a template. (ii) WP:AMBOX appears to use "problem" and "issue" more-or-less interchangeably -- it certainly does not make any attempt to make a distinction between the two. Therefore I don't accept your distinction. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • And it's untrue that all notice templates are about current events/recent deaths. Consider, for example, Template:In use and Template:Under construction. --Bsherr (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • (i) The templates you mention are Ombox, not Ambox. (ii) They have as little in common thematically with 'Expand' templates as the current event ones do (& (iii) the reason I missed them is because they don't appear to be listed under WP:TEMPLATE -- either that or I failed to notice them there because they contain so little blue). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
      • They're Mbox templates, which means on articles, they take the form of Ambox templates. While they're not necessarily similar to Expand (as I explained, Expand is unique), they do refute the assertion that all article notice templates are like Template:Current. And arguably, they have as much to do with content as Expand does. The distinction is that, like Expand, they do not identify a problem with the article. They are miscellaneous, like Expand is. --Bsherr (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I would consider such an 'argument' (actually, a mere assertion) to be both tendentious and unsubstantiated. As above, I don't accept that your 'issue vs problem' distinction has any (policy or reality-on-the-ground) validity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I think it is substantiated. Do you know what happens if you don't specify a type for an Mbox template (including Ambox, Ombox, Cmbox, Tmbox)? --Bsherr (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
            • No, you simply stated "And arguably, they have as much to do with content as Expand does." -- without giving any substantiating argument. That was the 'argument' I was referring to -- as it was the only relevant part of your comment. This discussion is about applying WP:AMBOX to a specific subset of Amboxes. If you think that WP:AMBOX is inconsistent with policies for other boxes, then take it up on WT:AMBOX, NOT HERE! And preferably not with me -- I am rapidly losing my patience with this discussion -- particularly as it has presented me with nothing that makes me wish to rethink my opposition -- and in fact has hardened it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
            • And I would further point out that, even if true, that "they have as much to do with content as Expand does" does not offer a valid argument for including expand templates with current event (or work-in-progress) ones. A purported shared degree of (dis)similarity to a third category does not imply any special similarity to each other, and therefore provides no valid argument for grouping them together. If you think expand/suggestion/whatever-you-want-to-call-your-proposed-category is sufficiently distinctive, then propose giving it a new colour (suggestion=green=growth='go-ahead'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
              • The valid argument is the answer to my question above. Do you know what happens if you don't specify a type? --Bsherr (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
                • I DO NOT CARE "what happens if you don't specify a type", as this is IRRELEVANT to the issue of your proposal [see my comment dated 03:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)]. Badgering me about irrelevancies will not alter my opposition to your proposal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • You said I didn't provide a valid argument for including expand templates with current event (or work-in-progress) ones. This is relevant, because it is a valid argument for doing so. Might you care now? --Bsherr (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • Discussion of what the myriad of possibilities are for non-Ambox-Mboxes is NOT RELEVANT in deciding which Ambox category to place a specific group of templates into. Further attempts at discussion of this will be treated as WP:TLDNR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
                      • I said Mbox templates (including Ambox, Ombox, Cmbox, Tmbox). I was explaining what Mbox meant because I thought you might not understand. This applies to Ambox. (Above you thought an Mbox template was an Ombox template.) Did you misread? Otherwise, I don't understand. --Bsherr (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
                        • Given that you've offered no demonstration of how your question of "what happens if you don't specify a type for an Mbox template" (whether it includes Amboxes, the kitchen sink or whatever) is relevant to what templates we need, and what categories/colours they should be, I really don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about this point (or likely any other tangential point you are likely to rope in). Deal with my indifference. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
                          • Would you be interested in the explanation, or are you just being uncivil now? --Bsherr (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • Let me ask this, too—would you consider not specifying an ambox type for Expand as a possible solution? --Bsherr (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • For {{expand}} only distantly -- I would consider it to be suboptimal to content-orange or new-grow-green, but superior to notice-blue. For {{expand section}}, this has already been discussed (or something very similar to it) and been rejected (for visibility reasons which I would still consider to be valid). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A view from the coalface

This is a response to this comment from Bsherr.

Prefactory remarks

• First I'd like to say that Bsherr's "hope" is wearing as thin as my patience. I have found the discussion to date over-long, and underly-informative.
• I will however attempt to delineate my experiences to date, and the conclusions I draw from them.

Experiences

My experiences (particularly with Creation–evolution controversy‎, but also with other articles) is as follows:

1. Somebody either proposes a restructure of an article on article talk, or sees the need for restructuring as sufficiently obvious that they are WP:BOLD and restructure unilaterally.
2. The restructuring highlights subtopics that are either superfluous (and are moved to other articles, or article-talk) or not/under-covered (created as a section with either a single sentence, or a {{seealso}} as a placeholder, and a {{expand section}} tag).
3. After the restructuring is complete, editors go back and fill in the gaps.

• I would use whatever template seemed appropriate, and would not pay much attention to what colour it happened to be (blue, orange or pink-with-purple-polka-dots). I am only involved in this discussion because (i) I happened to have the {{expand section}} template on my watchlist due to previous issues & (ii) because I've been made aware of WP:AMBOX.
• I would generally not use {{expand}} myself, as offering too little insight into where the expansion was needed, and would preferentially create new sections (with some barebones indicating what the section should be covering) & a {{expand section}}.

Analysis & conclusions

1. Form follows function -- work out what templates are needed first, then decide what category/colour they should be.
   • I see little distinction between problem/issue/suggestion, particularly when assuming the non-desirability of overuse of templates for minor/borderline issues, and a large distinction between them and the 'notice' templates. I therefore see no problem including a content "suggestion" template into the same category as content "problems". I however have no problem with, for aesthetic/sensitivity reasons, creating a new (I would suggest green) category for expand.
2. Where an article is arguably 'incomplete':
   1. Generalised need for expansion: {{expand}}
   2. Specific need for expansion: create a section, with some barebones indicating what the section should be covering) & a {{expand section}}
   3. Any unease with the article that is too vague to be covered by either of the two above issues, or a desire for 'cleanup' of a specific issue and/or section (with appropriate cleanup templates), is probably better expressed on article talk, where specifics can be teased out.
      • Templates are for notifying specific issues -- generalised issues are better discussed on article talk.

• Therefore I would conclude that {{incomplete}} is superfluous, regardless of categorisation (hence my !vote on the TfD).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I just want to point out my opinion is stated clearly at WP:ALTEXPAND. I don't think either template should even exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• If the complaint about the colour of "expand" is because it is not an immediate notice (unlike inuse, or current) then perhaps a new colour is needed for suggestions for article improvement (green). As for template:incomplete, that seems redundant to {{stub}} for massive lack of information, {{expand-section}} for empty or deficient sections, {{expand}} for articles, and {{missing information}} for all other uses, and is rather vague. If expand is moved to green, then so should {{more cats}} . I left some more points at the TfD for incomplete. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• After some consideration, I support this proposal. The more templates Wikipedia articles will have, the better they'll be able express the essence of Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The origin of the colors

FWIW: I was the one who suggested consciously paralleling the ANSI Signal Words (although the colors under discussion were already similar to that standard). I also wrote much of the original docs. As I recall from the discussion at the time, severity was very much the thinking. The higher up the chart at WP:AMBOX#Categories and colours you go, the more severe the problem is. "Content" meant an article was "wrong" somehow, and "needed to be fixed" in order to stand properly. "Notice" was more along the lines of "This is okay, but it could be better". It was indeed intended for improvement opportunities. So I'd say {{expand}} very much fits under the original intent of the "Notice" category. Whether actual usage matches that, I couldn't say. Hope this helps, —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Editprotected

{{editprotected}} At previous TfDs people complained about not knowing that it was going on. Can someone add, in a small font, a neutral TfD notice to the bottom of this template that will show on articles? Link to the TfD Gigs (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done - added standard {{tfd}} tag (which appears as a single line in articles) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't know what was going on. Rich Farmbrough, 15:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Expand Expand

Expand the template (which is relatively brief) by making it more of an invitation to readers to become editors. It's one of the least technical-sounding cleanup/improvement tags, and a so a good one to use this approach on.

Please help improve this article by expanding it using reliable sources. Further information might be found on the talk page. (Help for getting started with editing)

PS (existing formatting of "improve this article" and "the talk page" should be kept, I just haven't bothered to copy it here). Rd232 ^talk 12:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was delete??????????????????

On "vote count" we have 65-68 "delete" votes (depending on how IPs are counted), versus 67 "keeps".

Vote count??? 65–68 to 67??? Do you know WTF is consensus? Consensus is not a majority vote. Every opinion counts. Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it. An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus. A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time, which, in this case, means keep this very-very useful template. There was no compromise nor consensus here! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The point of your comment is what??????????????????

1. Did you actually read the entire close? Its conclusion was not based upon vote-counting.
2. If you have a problem with the close, then the place to say so is at WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27#Template:Expand, not here.
3. Have a WP:TROUT (they're tasty grilled).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No, no! I read this→: "The result of the discussion was delete. On "vote count" we have 65-68 "delete" votes (depending on how IPs are counted), versus 67 "keeps". Under most conditions, with reasonable arguments on both sides which are in rough balance, I would close deletion discussions like this one as "no consensus"...." which is totally different from the link you provided. Thanks for the "grilled" trout, Hrafn. Happy 2011! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous category propagation

Isn't there a way to flag this template as being under deletion review without placing every article where it's transcluded into Category:Articles on deletion review? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Yes, it should begin to depopulate now, just give the job queue some time to catch up. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Logan, 4 January 2011

{{edit protected}} The deletion review ended up in an endorsement. The corresponding template should be removed from {{Expand}} so that users know it is okay to delete instances of the template.

Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Let us be accurate. It is only OK to delete instances that were OK to delete anyway. All others need replacing - which would also have been fine anyway - making the whole thing an exercise in pointlessness. Rich Farmbrough, 12:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

It wasn't pointless if it gets rid of this template. Putting more specific templates in its place when appropriate is fine, the whole problem with this template is that it wasn't saying anything meaningful. Gigs (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It is like dispersing a category. There was nothing stopping people "putting more specific templates in its place" - and indeed, it would have been a good thing anyway. Having the template officially deleted ... as if it will somehow "force" people to do something that they weren't doing before..I dunno, seems kinda coo-koo. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Just a historical note: The plan to replace about 20k instances the template with more specific templates was an abject failure, and all the transclusions were, in the end, summarily deleted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC).

Missing parameter?

The notice displayed above transcluded instances of this template currently reads as follows:

"‹ The template below ([[{{{2}}}|]]) is being deleted. See [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 16#{{{2}}}|templates for discussion]] for the discussion that led to this result. ›"

I think "{{Being deleted|2010 December 16}}" needs to be changed to "{{Being deleted|2010 December 16|Template:Expand}}"

DH85868993 (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed now. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WHAT?

Why the fuck would you people delete this template? Wasn't it like the most common template? Just sayin'... 71.91.96.128 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It was de-activated as a result of this TfD discussion. Wikipedians decided that this was being used too informally in articles and was no longer useful and decided by a near-tie consensus that it should be deleted. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

While this Wikipedian has mixed feelings on the subject and isn't particularly upset about it, the phrase "near-tie consensus" concerns me. What is that, exactly? Is there a better word for when strong arguments are weighed in the absence of a clear-cut consensus? Yclept:Berr (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Syntax error

The template is now broken - it displays "Expression error: Unexpected > operator". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to an example? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, because the template is deprecated. Just try adding it to this page and press "preview". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with this template, it's something with the {{Deleted template}} wrapper. Since nothing's changed with that since it was working fine, I don't know what the problem is. I've posted at WP:VPT. Rd232 ^talk 11:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed I changed the logic to check if REVISIONID exists before comparing it with an #ifexpr. [5] It will now also display the notice during a page preview. It should be safe enough to assume that if someone is previewing a page, the new saved page will have a higher REVISIONID anyway. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page show a sample of the actual template?

Pardon my ignorance, but aren't pages kept for historical reference supposed to display the last-modified version of the template as it used to appear on pages, so that people will know what got deleted? Thereby having a better understanding of what should be used instead? Yclept:Berr (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. This would depend on {{Deleted template}}. I'll see if I can come up with a way to make this work. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've updated {{Deleted template}} so that it will display the original template code on the template page itself [6] (and corrected a bug I discovered while I was at it). Is it now more what you had in mind? --Tothwolf (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Time for deletion

{{Editprotected}} Template is no longer used in the article namespace. Deprecation is over, time for deletion. Artem Karimov (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. - Take it to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. ^Avic_ennasis @ 03:49, 8 Av 5771 / 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Whole article

So what tag should I use if I think an whole article needs expansion? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Stub. Or assess it on talk as start-C/B. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't.

Tagging an article with something as meaningless as "This article needs more stuff in it" helps absolutely no-one. What you need to do is, y'know, expand the article. Yourself. Add more stuff to it. 98.254.202.225 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Idea for expand template

Hi I have an idea why'd punt you include a code which detect if it is a template or an article or something such as a talk page or many pages so that people wo doing know which template to use can just use expand and detect if it is a template and just say what other expand template says and put it into one big template 86.173.149.162 (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Restart this template

Hi I would like someone to restart this template because we could include a detect code so it will detect if it is a template and show the information for the template or it can detect an article and detect that one or something else since template:expand article is being deleted we might as well restart this template 90.211.52.178 (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Move to module

Could we ove all the expand templates in to module so for example we could do <includeonly>{{#invoke:Expand|name of expand}}</includeonly> it would be easer to just use the expand template and so that it would be a all in one template I doint know how to code but just making a suggestion 86.169.208.191 (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This template is not meant to be used again. So it wouldn't be a good idea to make a module. Garion96 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I know but if we put all the expand templates in one we then can re use this template and use the example at the top 86.159.27.62 (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not to use this template again. It was a quite pointless template. Garion96 (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Would it be more useful to salvage this page content (and perhaps even parts of the talk discussion) by either converting it to or expanding other help pages?

Re: 3rd topic on my talk page, "Misplaced but uniquely relevant, new information: time to call house cleaning or create space so that others may have avenues for further inquiry and contribution?"

As someone new to editing, but a long time avid reader, I have come to notice more and more that Wikipedia seems to be constantly lagging behind itself in categorization and cross-linking of structure. However, I have been struggling to understand where to bring this up in the larger scheme of things. Also, I unfortunately don't personally have the time needed to create articles for any of this. More so, I do not yet have the experience required to form any perspective for proper placement or inclusion. Therefore, I bring this up in the hopes of fruitful discussion and while perhaps maybe adding some hopefully useful, but always respectful outside perspective.

The Issue

As new material is roughed together, there needs to be a way to structure related articles and topics together. While it seems that individuals have, from time-to-time, stepped up so far, this can never substitute for established methods and procedures for effective organization.

Lack thereof may often lead to potentially undesirable pruning for lack of context. This is particularly troubling for those of us searching through records trying to find missing pieces of information. Too often, we discover that someone had attempted to connect new information, only to have to abandon these new sprouts, unattended, unable to take root, reach the sunshine of eager readers, nor the sustenance of earnest editors.

Generally, this is due to these new connections being quite rough and unpolished, lacking sufficient scaffolding to hold together on their own. Nevertheless, there is often a similar set of topics or articles (either already within Wikipedia or easily referenced on the web) that offers a framework that could be the template for this new growth.

Specifically, while most of the other pages that I've been researching on related topics have direct product lists/comparisons/links, often-as-not, none are listed within Wikipedia at all. Unfortunately, I personally don't have time to create articles for any of these, and am struggling just to sift through the information I have so far (aside: currently working on many hundreds of product impressions for rough comparison - business integration / custom development project).

Idea Suggestions to forward Discussion of potential Solution(s)

Nevertheless, I imagine there may be some, perhaps not established, but still some means to non-disruptively tag for connection all kinds of new discovered extracts, e.g. primary materials such as currently unlisted categorical and historical web portals for text editors, outliners, email/groupware, etc.; and several very in-depth multipage expert discussions on key topics: points of comparison plus emerging and critical issues.

After discussing this on my talk page:

• Huon pointed out relevant content from Template:Editing.

I also kept looking around and found this:

• From WP:Your_first_article:
  For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see WP:Requested articles.

• From WP:Requested_articles: "[F]ind the appropriate general topic area below, choose the best sub-topic that fits your subject, and use that link to go to its page. Add your request there by clicking "edit" at the appropriate heading. Give a brief description, with links if possible, for the proposed topic, to aid others in understanding your request."

• Also {{Notability}} tag on another page which may either be useful or lead to better help searches. Full sample text as the tag appears:

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products and services. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

Find sources: "Cone" software – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2010)

(Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Links to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal#Specific_template_guidance

Request for Guidance, Follow-up, and/or Hand-off with more Experienced Editor(s)

Having just discovered this page, and given how much prior discussion exists at both this TfD and this RFC. I am doing my best to tread softly. Please bear in mind, that I have not had the time to become familiar with contributing to Wikipedia, much less, plod through and properly understand the several pages of prior discussion.

Having said that, I do believe this Page represents potentially useful prior work, and I may perhaps have some inkling of how its content might be repurposed to address a wider problem. Not knowing what is best, I am doing my best to follow the direction given after the prior discussions were closed and posting this on Template_talk:Expand.

If I can figure out how to better frame the new structure I'm thinking of, I may repost or update this to the Village Pump. In the meantime, if anyone else knows of any examples or conventions that apply, please list them below, e.g. Taxonomy (biology).

Is there some useful way for the above content to be cross-linked to one or both of the above help articles or even the WP:Requested_articles template? Could this then be used as raw material for new help -- and perhaps eventually template -- pages, thereby providing ways and means for better intra- and inter- topic connection?

I think this would be especially useful in recruiting new Wikipedians, as there are many of us who excel at gathering, cross-referencing, and arranging information, but may not feel particularly well equipped for writing or editing. Seeing evidence of meaningful intention to substantially expand categorical and topical relevance of Wikipedia could very well induce others to seek out and join our community just for the privilege of working with such actionable tags.

In view of contributing to our community. Thank you all for creating and maintaining Wikipedia. Tree4rest (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how adding a vague, general note that an article might be expanded would help. Is there any article that absolutely cannot be expanded? Where expansion wouldn't be considered helpful? That seems unlikely. Such a vague note could thus be added to every page. And what's the purpose of that?

We do have more specific maintenance templates that add messageboxes to pages to point out specific shortcomings, such as, say, {{underlinked}}, {{categorize}} or {{orphan}}. If an editor feels content on some aspect of a topic is missing, they can use {{missing information}} and maybe expand on the problem on the article's talk page. Just proposing a page for vague expansion without elaborating on what needs to be expanded or fixed is much less likely to be acted on than those more specific requests for improvement. Those show that someone has thought about improving the article and has identified ways how it can be improved, even if they cannot do it themselves. That seems much more significant "evidence of meaningful intention to substantially expand categorical and topical relevance" than merely saying "please help expand this page" without elaborating. Huon (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)