Template talk:Expand section

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Expand-section)
Jump to: navigation, search

When should this template be used?[edit]

FYI: Question answered.

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this tag is, beyond its use in sections that have been left nearly blank as stubs to be filled. How large can a section be and still need this tag? Can I go to an already long section (like one of those infernal "Criticism" sections) and add "This section requires expansion" to it? (Specifically I'm wondering about this section.) (And what would be the right place to discuss this?) Shreevatsa (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Use the |1= parameter to add why the template is being added. The template isn't about length, it's about completeness of information, so it can be used for any section that has obvious missing information, even if it is otherwise well-developed. If it seems over-long, this is a good reason to rearrange the information, e.g. in two sections or in a series of subsections. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 00:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


Unresolved: This appears to have been left hanging.
Moved to Template talk:Expand: Subsection is Type --Tothwolf (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} A reading of the WP:AMBOX guideline indicates that the "expand" family of templates should probably have type=content. Some templates in this family have already been changed that way. Perhaps this should be changed as well for uniformity. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: I suspect this will be contentious so I ask that you discuss this somewhere central (eg Wikipedia talk:Template messages) and obtain a consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a RfC at Wikipediatalk:Manual_of_Style_(article_message_boxes)#.22Expand.22_templates. Template:expand was already edited (before the RfC) even though it's protected, so YMMV. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Coming full circle:

  • Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Expand and add shows that all related (non-deprecated) expansion-request templates have already been made orange, e.g. Template:Missing information, The only templates cataloged there that aren't are this one (blue), and a few addition-request templates (please add ISBNs, etc.), which are yellow (style) because they're about presentation/formatting of citations.
  • The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Article message boxes/Archive 9#"Expand" templates suggests "no templates closely-related to {{expand}} [are] being classified as type=notice (blue), but a large number in the relevant category of WP:TMC, and particularly WP:TMC#Expand and add ... are type=content (orange), so consistency would suggest that {{expand}} should be color-coded the same." There was no serious disagreement with this (the one challenge was answered adequately). The rest of the thread (aside from flamey noise about {{Expand}}) is, in fact, a clear presentation of evidence that making the "expand" templates blue "notice" amboxes constituted an attempt to change the MoS without consensus. The only one that is still blue is this one, because the discussion about fixing it was re-routed to {{Expand}}'s talk page, and it was then TfD'd (it only still exists for historical reasons).
  • The discussion at Template talk:Expand#Type (to the extent that the rancorous gripe-fest there about the future of that template in particular can be sorted through at all for relevance to this template) clearly differentiated between the templates, with {{expand section}}, like {{empty section}}, seen as flagging a specific actual content cleanup issue (i.e. orange ambox), while {{expand}} was seen as a highly general, vague notice box (blue ambox), and this was actually why it was TfD'd.
  • The rationale formerly applied to {{expand}} doesn't apply to this template. User:Tothwolf at the MoS discussion clearly summarized {{expand}} as a non-"warning" template, a general request for editorial attention to make an article better, not an indication that something was wrong with the content. {{expand section}} is quite the opposite; its principal purpose is to flag a section as obviously missing crucial information (thus its "requires" wording; it is not a request, it is a notice of an article failing). In the exact wording of MOS:AMBOX: "[Orange] Content: Problems with the content of an article, i.e., what the article actually says" vs. "[Blue] Notice: Information readers/editors should be aware of".

Ergo, the request made on 11 November 2010 to change:




is clearly supported by consensus everywhere anything relevant has come up. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 18:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 18:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Having "1=" also be "with="[edit]

It would definitely be helpful if the |1= parameter were also addressable as |with=, for mnemonic reasons. Anyone have a substantive objection? It's much easier to remember that the template takes a parameter with an English-language name that to remember what order the parameters are in and whether all of them are named or some are numbered, and so on, especially since the text this parameter creates leads in with the string "with:". It also reinforces that it does just that, and reminds the editor to phrase the parameter's value as something that would properly follow such wording. This is non-trivial if you don't use this template daily and memorize everything about it. Every single time I use it I have to come to the documentation for a reminder what the parameter is called and what its output is. It's getting kind of annoying. And I probably use this template much more often than the average editor (several times per month). It's also just plain weird that this template has named parameters for everything it does, with this one random exception. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 00:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC) A second reason to do this (and actually deprecate or simply never again mention the |1= usage) is that having people use |with= with automatically prevent any cases of incorrect display because of "=" or any other problematic characters appearing in the values editors apply to this parameter. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 14:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No objection in almost a month, so I'm making this an editprotected request. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 14:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Expand_section/sandbox has the code, and Template:Expand_section/testcases shows that it works properly (including a fix for a long-standing problem with line-initial wikimarkup formatting, as demonstrated in the testcases). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 17:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Also folded in the ambox type fix, above. If someone wants to object, just use the rev before that. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 18:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Seems ok, but I think the code could be simplified by using {{{1|{{{with|}}} }}}An optimist on the run! 12:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I have just made this simplification suggested above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done --slakrtalk / 06:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't the date shown for this template?[edit]

How come this is the only template that doesn't have the date shown without having to click edit? Every other maintenance template (even the {{citation needed}} template, which shows the date in a "tooltip") has the date shown, so why not this one? —Compdude123 19:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well? Is anyone going to answer my question, or perhaps change this template? Having the date shown would be extremely helpful. Thanks, Compdude123 15:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
{{ambox}} is not currently coded to display the date when it is used its small version. I guess this was because the box was intended to be small and this would add quite a bit of text. I think this was discussed somewhere before. Try the archives at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Article message boxes. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Compdude, I only found a brief discussion about displaying the date, but the feelings were as I suggested above. (See Template talk:Expand section/Archive 1#Ready to deploy (section break 2).) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion currently taking place at Template talk:Unreferenced section#Date not showing about this very issue. Any comments there would be welcome. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please update from sandbox[edit]

Please update the template with a slightly improved version that can be found on the sandbox. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Could we use the subst parameter as well, because it simplifies a lot of the code? (See sandbox.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
How could I miss that? Of course. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You also forgot the date parameter, which is needed for the categorising. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I haven't edited seriously here in quite a while. Then again, I got married to a great girl! You have to get lucky once in your life. :) See also the top of my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Heh, congratulations! Obviously far more important than anything here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. So real life is getting the better of me. :) Debresser (talk)

Edit request on 25 June 2012[edit]

On the list of Treaties of the United States, there is no Treaty between the United States and the Kindom of Hawaii that was signed on December 20, 1849, why is this?

Nachopadilla (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • You'll need to ask on the talk page for that list of treaties. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Which you can find at List of United States treaties. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2012[edit]

Currently the template renders (something like):

This section requires expansion. (August

however the splitting of the month and year is a little untidy. Could a <br/> be inserted so that the template renders (something like):

This section requires expansion.
(August 2012)

GFHandel   02:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


coulden we make the template bigger then being small and to the left because if it is big it is eye catching and could we add more information to the template then this section needs expanding a bit more information please176.254.140.79 (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If you need to display more information, you can add it to the article's talk page. I think that an optional parameter, to display the template aliened to the right (like: |right) would be useful in some articles, as aliened to the left is useful in others. --Götz (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A bit wider?[edit]

The template width should be edited to make it a bit more wider so that the content (including the month and year) will be displayed in a single line. This would make the template less ugly in most cases. Rehman 07:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of 2 lines, and would add a break before the date, and perhaps also make the template shorter. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
If it takes up a row (not floating) then why limit the with, why not just make it "100%"? The space to the right will be blank and unused anyway so nothing is gained by using a set with. Also it is more clear (unambiguous) when it looks/acts as a "notice" for the entire section. (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

{{subst:DATE}} as default[edit]

I propose to set {{subst:DATE}} as default value. It will be much better solution that using bot filling this all the time. It won't be harmful change because |date= para can be filled only with date of inserting this template. Please comment. --Rezonansowy (talkcontribs) 18:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have recently seen this same proposal on another template. There are two ways of doing this, and there is no reason to prefer any of them. If anything, there is a reason to prefer the first option, which explain implicitly how to date templates from previous months and years. 15:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Debresser (talk)
We can do this by default only. If somebody fills this param with another date, the effect will be identical. I think there's no reason to use AnomieBot to filling this, if we can automate it without bypassing its functionality. --Rezonansowy (talkcontribs) 20:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me you don't understand: Just copy the text from the documentation, that is: {{Expand section|date=February 2016}}, and that is all. What do you need a bot for? Debresser (talk)
@Debresser: No, it's difficult with constant copypaste from the documentation when editing or when you're using Visual Editor. Please see User:AnomieBOT, this bot fills automatically this template with the current date. I think bot isn't best way to do it. If everyone filled it, this bot task would not exist. I didn't mean using bot (which is present}, but just the opposite.--Rezonansowy (talkcontribs) 16:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
You propose an edit of 14 characters. That is even more than date=May 2014 in the lucky case it is May. In any case, what if the template is dated to an earlier month than the current? Won't work, sorry. Debresser (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so, if you place there {{subst:DATE}} it'll fill this with date when you've saved the page. --Rezonansowy (talkcontribs) 21:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Debresser? --Rezonansowy (talkcontribs) 14:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Where do you want to use {{subst:DATE}}? I don't remember any other templates doing this. There must be a reason for it. Maybe I don't understand you well. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the displayed link[edit]

Specifically, regarding the word "expansion" that's presently hyperlinked to source editing mode. Example:

I was a bit surprised that the "expansion" link took me directly to source editing instead of some sort of tutorial (and/or guideline, explanation. etc.). It seems that it would be rather surprising for the 'average reader' to be dropped into an unfamiliar interface—with unfamiliar markup syntax—without the benefit of some sort of introduction.

I suppose elevating a 'curious reader' who clicks a link directly to 'naive editor' is one way to go about promoting editing, but personally, I suspect that inserting some sort of brief orientation step—with links to relevant resources—might help make for a more pleasant experience. For both the 'curious reader'/'aspiring editor' and for those who interact with a page after them.

There's probably already a page or section somewhere that would be appropriate (or easily tweaked to be so). Anybody have any suggestions?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. In an attempt to keep this discussion in one place, once consensus has been achieved at WP:VPR#Modify the "Template:Expand section" link target., I'd be happy to process this request. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 11:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I'm reopening the discussion back up here per my note on VPR. I have updated the /sandbox to include WP:Tutorial and will move that change live barring any objection in about 12-14 hours. Please do take some time to check it out on the /testcases page and let me know your thoughts on the change. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 12:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey, that looks good. Info and access. --Kevjonesin (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The only problem is that when you click on a tab of the tutorial, you will lose your changes. It would be nice if the pages linked from the tutorial opened in a new window. Petr Matas 08:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Parameter "talksection"[edit]

The "TemplateData" section lists a parameter, "talksection", defined as "A section heading in the talk page where the issue is discussed." But adding that parameter with a value (as "talksection=foo", without the quotation marks) doesn't change the display as far as I can tell. I expected it to create a link to the relevant section on the Talk page. Am I missing something? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point. The meta template does not display the talk page link when the small format is used (because we are trying to keep the template small). However this template will default to the small size, so the talk page link will not display unless you actually specify |small=no. (See Template:Expand section/testcases.) Hmm, maybe better to remove this functionality altogether? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that secret information! I think a link to the relevant section of the Talk page is very useful—moreso than a link for editing the page, really—and wouldn't like to see that functionality removed. Better to make it work without the "small" parameter (which isn't even mentioned on the template page). J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


Why does the template say 'requires'? Is there a regulation it must satisfy? Praemonitus (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"Requires" can mean simply "needs". It doesn't necessarily imply that something is mandatory. The dictionary is your friend. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)