Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] July 13
[edit] Template:IMSLPwork
[edit] Template:Integrate
[edit] Template:List of Anime Ep TV
[edit] Template:Currentlink-related
[edit] Template:News sources warning
[edit] Template:Current events box BritEng
[edit] Template:List of Anime English Ep TV
[edit] Template:Infobox Military Australia
[edit] Template:Infobox Military China
[edit] Template:Infobox Military Azerbaijan
[edit] Template:Infobox Military Austria
[edit] Template:Infobox Military Armenia
[edit] Template:Infobox Military Antigua and Barbuda
[edit] Template:Infobox Military Angola
[edit] Template:Infobox Military Algeria
[edit] Template:prose
[edit] Template:Camp Lazlo
[edit] Template:New Seven Wonders
[edit] Template:Expand
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. After carefully reviewing the discussion, the first thing to note in this close is that there were no pressing policy concerns on either side. The !keep votes seems all focused, basically, on the idea that the template is useful. Among the !keep votes there seems to be little disagreement that this is particularly helpful for non-stub articles that need attention or expansion. The keep votes are convincing because many provide a rationale beyond "useful" or "helpful" (not that these are invalid arguments for TfD in any way) and expand on how they have been useful and helpful for the editors themselves. !Delete votes focus on issues such as "ugly template clutter" or "lack of usefulness". Since a large majority of editors purport to find this template useful, it seems we should err on the side of a diverse toolkit for many editing styles. Other template options (i.e. {{expert}}) presented by !oppose voters also contribute to template clutter, but seeing as the other options are unlikely to be used in conjunction with this template, it should not add to clutter in an absolute sense. These arguments, in addition to the keep super-majority seems to make the decision to close as keep fairly clear. Editorial decisions to shrink the template or place it on talk pages are certainly possible later options. IronGargoyle 05:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
This template clearly is redundant with stubs. In many shorter articles marked with the Expand template, there are two or more stubs also included, amounting to three requests to help by "expanding this article". The expand template I see as defacing many fine articles or as simply an example of 'template fetishism.' — Gilliam 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I also thought of nominating this. After reading the talk page and the useage of this template I still don't see the need for this template. Garion96 (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - see above, - Bemoeial 10:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- No delete - While I can see the arguments presented, I disagree. Take the page Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, for example. Clearly it is not a stub, and yet it clearly could do with some more information. As such, I think that this template has a valid place and should be kept. Further more, I think that the problems outlined above are not a problem with the template, but rather a misuse of the template system (there shouldn't be six different stubs on an article surely...).I ate jelly 10:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Also, see the talk page for the template, Template_talk:Expand, which has many (if not all) of the arguments that are going to come up.I ate jelly 10:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - It can be useful on non-stubs, and placement is an issue with many templates (move it to the talk page if you like). Richard001 11:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, ridiculously overused. Any article on Wikipedia can be improved by editing, and a note on the talk page what is missing and what should be done would be more useful than this intrusive ugly template. Kusma (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Kusma. The whole point of Wikipedia is to collect knowledge, so any article can and should be expanded. Plus simply saying it SHOULD be expanded is really no help, and talk on the discussion page would be much more useful to descide what can be expanded. Kevin 15:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- keep called for in situations with a more pressing need for expansion. A stub might article might sit under the watchful eye of editors of a topic for years without expansion, indeed sometimes it's very difficult on obscure topics, yet the stub is enough for basic information on the topic and has no real glarring omissions. But an expand tag, I personally use when for whatever reason I need to create an article or section quickly, and it needs expansion to cover the subject sufficiently. I think an expand tag alerts people to this more pressing need for work. Just because a template is mis-used sometimes doesn't mean we delete the template... --W.marsh 12:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- keep per W.marsh. I use it myself. While it may not be appropriate for all situations, in those where it is not, it should simply be removed. No need to delete a useful template. IPSOS (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If there is not information to expand, that is no point to use this. --Aleenf1 13:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? There's always more information... your comment seems unclear. --W.marsh 13:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- If limited information found on internet, how to expand that article? --Aleenf1 02:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- By using non-Internet (hard copy/library research) information. --MatthewDBA 12:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? There's always more information... your comment seems unclear. --W.marsh 13:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, useful on non-stub articles. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, per Gyrofrog's suggestion. There are situations that an article is not a stub, yet needs more information to build on. --Blackhawk charlie2003 14:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Shouldn't all articles be stubbed anyway? Smokizzy (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. While in theory, anyone could at any moment come along and add information to an article, this tag is useful in situations where 1.) the article is too long to be considered a stub and either 2.) there is a specific request for expansion (which is what I most often use this tag for) or 3.) there are obvious gaps. We have some bot-driven systems that are categorizing tagged articles by topic and by month. These are helping people find articles they are interested in working on which actively need attention. Not every article on a given topic has obvious gaps or a specific request for elucidation, so it's useful to direct people to particular articles. Some people also enjoy working on the oldest tagged articles, and the tags are partly there to help motivate editors to jump in. Expand tags should be removed from stub articles, since one "this article needs to be longer" tag is enough, and stubs are integrated into the topical sorting system. If people don't like to see "expand" tags on perfectly good articles, they can either fill the expansion request or move it to the talk page (which is where I always drop "expand" tags, though some editors feel it is more useful on the article page where more people can see it). If editors see an "expand" tag and it's not immediately obvious what to do, they should remove it and put a note on the talk page asking for specific suggestions. -- Beland 15:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. 69.140.164.142 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, it's pretty useless despite the venerable age of this template. I would prefer to see an "expand this section" tag used instead, which would be far more useful. Tempshill 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per W.marsh. Anomie 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I always use this template for stub articles I find. It goes for the whole article while others I've seen are only for sections in an article. If the decision is ultimately to delete the please replace with something that does the job. This template serves as an obvious way to tell potential editors to expand the article. The stub line on the bottom of the page can sometimes go unnoticed.--_ BaRiMzI _ 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Template is appropriate for stub-articles as well as non-stub articles with sections that need improvement. To say nothing of the havoc wrought by trying to remove references from this template across (likely) over a million articles. Madcoverboy 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete-Although I think that it is a very good template in that it helps people too see which areas need expanding, I believe that it is used too sparingly, sometimes even on articles that are of good quality--The-G-Unit-Boss 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't that a reason to use the template correctly? We shouldn't be deleting templates as punishment towards users who use the template incorrectly... if that were the case, {{npov}} and many others need to go. Annoyance with people who misuse a template is a poor reason to delete a template. --W.marsh 17:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I see a few main arguments here. Argument one is that the larger tag gets more people to expand more pressing articles. If so, we would not have a backlog of articles to be expanded since 2005. This is not to say people don't expand articles - I know they do, and people who do are invaluable to the project - but that a tag doesn't denote pressing expansion at all. Argument two is that it isn't redundant with stubs, because some articles tagged with these aren't stubs. I say, then, that they're redundant with article assessment, specifically Stub-Class and Start-Class assessments. My take is that it's just template clog and should be deleted. Crystallina 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it does... if someone adds this tag to an article I watch, I'll expand the article if it's needed. Just because some articles don't have many people watching them (and thus, maintenence tags get ignored) is a poor reason to delete the tag. --W.marsh 17:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes it can be. One difference is that I don't see this tag as important as a cleanup tag (also widely misused for that matter). It is much better to leave a message on the talk page if you want something to be expanded. Tags on the actual article should only be done for more important messages. Garion96 (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- If an article is that closely watched, then, you might get better results leaving a personal message on the watcher's talk page or on the article's talk page than using an impersonal template. Crystallina 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes it can be. One difference is that I don't see this tag as important as a cleanup tag (also widely misused for that matter). It is much better to leave a message on the talk page if you want something to be expanded. Tags on the actual article should only be done for more important messages. Garion96 (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it does... if someone adds this tag to an article I watch, I'll expand the article if it's needed. Just because some articles don't have many people watching them (and thus, maintenence tags get ignored) is a poor reason to delete the tag. --W.marsh 17:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- The problem with just leaving a note on the talk page without tagging the note is that 1.) no one who is not alread watching the talk page will know it's there, and 2.) the message can easily get accidentally archived without anyone actually filling the request. The tag is certainly not redundant with article assessment - I've left notes on featured articles, no less, that need expansion here or there. -- Beland 02:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - there are generally other ways, probably more effective ways, to indicate that an article could use work in expansion, which are not quite so graphic. Also, there is no way to ensure that the template is not used indiscriminately, and on that basis it becomes functionally worthless, as there is no reason to think that it could not be legitimately added to at least half the articles in wikipedia. John Carter 17:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- No template duplicates the purpose of this template. There are many articles for which this is the best and only template that could be used. As to indiscrimilate use, is there any way to ensure that any template is not indiscriminately used? I could give you some classic examples from stub-sorting of indiscriminate template use - this for instance, or better yet, this. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- keep-definitely keep,this article could certainly use some expansion in hopes of having a better one one dayGrandia01 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep because it can be used to link an article to a listing at WP:RFE, which a stub cannot do. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep because it leaves a large visual reminder on the article page itself, like a sticky note. -- Emana 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Any time this could be used, it should just be mentioned on the talk page. Like it has been said, every article needs to be expanded if possible. Also, the phrase "template fetishism" needs to be used more.Jay42 18:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- So use the template on the talk page instead. A simple comment won't categorise the article. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopedia dictates that every article should be as complete as possible. Most articles could use more information to some degree. There indeed are some that have reached very close to perfection, but most fall somewhere lower than that level. It should be immediately obvious to someone reading the article how badly content is needed without a fat tag on the top informing them that the article is incomplete (someone remove the emphasis if bolding isn't allowed here). Stubs fill in the need for categorization. Scytheml 18:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- But stubs and articles using {{expand}} are different types of article. And it is very useful to know which articles are high-priority as regards expansion - which is the reason this template exists. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I saw the tag used a couple of times in sections rather than entire articles, which I thought was fairly useful, but the distinction you make is simply not true, due to overuse by many Wikipedians. If this tag was used as it should be (sparingly and responsibly), it wouldn't be a problem. However, this is simply not the case. Scytheml 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then shouldn't we have something on the template page or even the template itself saying how it should be used? Morgan Wick 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I saw the tag used a couple of times in sections rather than entire articles, which I thought was fairly useful, but the distinction you make is simply not true, due to overuse by many Wikipedians. If this tag was used as it should be (sparingly and responsibly), it wouldn't be a problem. However, this is simply not the case. Scytheml 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I tend to see this as redundant, but if it's useful for other people I don't favor deletion. However, for people who use the tag like W.Marsh, would it not be better to provide some reason why expanding this article is of particular use (as opposed to every other article)? I'm thinking something like {{MEA-expand}} (which I've only seen used a few times), which remarks that it should be expanded because it is of priority to the Missing Encyclopedia Articles project. Perhaps different WikiProjects should have their own variation on this, and if whatever they consider their core articles are short or missing a significant area, that can be used? (Are there other templates like that?) Rigadoun (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This template helps newcomers know when an article needs more information and that they can help out too. The stubs don't really tell that an article needs expansion and most anons probably won't be visiting the talk page much. --Hdt83 Chat 18:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Please, the crud on top of pages has to stop. We're looking for articles when we look at Wikipedia, not templates. This is an extremely editor-based tempolate which hurts the content of the page for readers. If you want to group articles which need work, try just placing a category on them. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 18:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Um... that's exactly what this template does. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- It does that in addition to making an ugly mess on the top of articles that the general public would much rather simply read. I should have bolded the word "just". Try JUST putting a category on instead. It can be used EXACTLY the same way and doesn't muck up our mainspace. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't want to see this tag on article pages, move it to the talk page. That's what I do. -- Beland 02:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- It does that in addition to making an ugly mess on the top of articles that the general public would much rather simply read. I should have bolded the word "just". Try JUST putting a category on instead. It can be used EXACTLY the same way and doesn't muck up our mainspace. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: people find it useful (useful as in using it), and the tag can be removed where it is unneeded or covered by a stub template. The best solution to template fetishism is removing cleanup templates when they are not needed or redundant! The "expand section" functionality seems especially useful, since I find the idea of a {{sectstub}} a bit gawky. GracenotesT § 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep a very useful template for many, many articles which need expansion. It's simple to use and can easily be removed when the article is expanded. --AW 19:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep an article can not be a stub and still need to be expanded.--danielfolsom 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It serves a different purpose than a stub. An article or section doesn't have to be a stub to need expansion. Sijo Ripa 19:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The "expand" template appears in many articles that clearly are not stubs. Just because some overeager editors put both the expand template and one or two stubs on the same page is not a valid reason for tossing out the template. StudierMalMarburg 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Useful for certain articles which get a lot of visits from occasional editors (via forums, etc.) who can't be bothered to read MoS/styleguides to let them know which sections need improving. Should be used with care, though: it's a way of letting the reader know that Wikipedia knows that the current content may be unacceptable. The JPStalk to me 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the template is useful to expand article.An article with expand tag can easily be noticed in Category:Articles to be expanded and Wikipedia:Requests for expansion.Editors can take those articles from start to featured status.--NAHID 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete for nearly all attention templates. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 19:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- How does this meet speedy criteria? — Omegatron 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Useful. — Omegatron 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -I really don't like this template at all, particularly when it's the first thing you see on an article. However, this template can be useful when used for small sections of articles. That is the only reason I'd keep.AtmanDave 12:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Redundant with stubs indeed, per nom. -mrbartjens 08:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary section break
- Delete. Ugly and serves no purpose. Thousands of articles are tagged with this thing, to no avail. If people really think this is useful it can be moved to the talk page--then at least it wouldn't be an eyesore on the article itself. --Fang Aili talk 19:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Ugly and serves no purpose - in fact, I think it's counter-productive, since people can slap this down and feel like they've helped, instead of actually editing. You might as well have a template that says This article needs to be improved. Please improve it. - DavidWBrooks 19:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Shall we also delete {{uncategorised}}, {{wikify}}, {{cleanup-context}}, and all those other "counter-productive" templates, then? This one is no different to any other cleanup resource template. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Most of them, yes; they're an utter waste through and through. Especially {{uncategorised}}... I'm still utterly confused about all these... exactly how are they any more useful than a simple category saying "the article lacks wikification/sources/categories etc."? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think it does help to slap this template on an article. How else can editors who wish to find articles to expand find the ones that need the most attention? True, actually adding content is the most preferred kind of help, but I think it's wrong to say that at least tagging articles that need content, so they can be found, is not helpful. Äþelwulf See my contributions. 03:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. An uneeded distraction. If an editor wants to contribute he or she will w/o the encouragement of a template. Furthermore, almost all WP articles could be expanded further. Signaturebrendel 20:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's true. But it's very useful to have a category showing those articles where expansion is a top priority - a function performed by this template. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't know why users call this template as ugly and does not serve purpose. This template is appropriate for stub- and non-stub articles with sections that needs improvement. --BWCNY 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - per Emana and BWCNY. ZapBoy (contribs) (sign here) 21:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Template:Expand and Template:Expand-section - Redundant and uglier than the other option, nowadays. Check out the updated Template:Sectstub - It's now small enough to be unobtrusive and far more elegant than this and its old layout. Should replace this template, when applicable, with stub and sectstub. MrZaiustalk 21:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sectstub is not "the other option" - it fulfils a completely different function. And yes, replacement where appropriate is fine - but it isn't always appropriate to replace it with either. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: - per W. Marsh. I find this template very useful. Jza84 22:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep to me this is one of the most important templates in the whole Wikipedia, because it gives you the chance to mark a single section to be expanded in an existing article. Ugliness is much less important than usefulness. --Angelo 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- That is Template:Expand-section which does not seem to be up for deletion here. Garion96 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- The template says "Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.". In any case, it is useful as well for marking articles which need an expansion. Not all stub can be expanded (it depends on how many sources are available for them), and not all articles which need expansions are stub as well. --Angelo 00:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, show me the one that could not be expanded 32.60.106.156 22:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Angelo. KJS77 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep TomStar81 (Talk) 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; if an non-stub article needs expanding, use {{section-stub}}. Laïka 23:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's a very useful template if it's only one section that needs expanding - but not at all useful if a non-stub article needs to be expanded overall. Which is why we have this separate template, and why its useful. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note that, with that same concern in mind, sectstub was recently greatly shrunk in size. I never could stand articles with multiple uses of the template, but now it works just fine:
-
- Would have agreed with you a month ago, but now I believe that sectstub is a more elegant tool, and that article-wide expansion requests on non-stubs are so vague as to be meaningless. Better off just asking a question on the talk page or, better yet, throwing out an expert request. MrZaiustalk 00:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Btw, here's a decent example of a page that makes use of the template multiple times: American Samoa. Never going to find a GA that uses it even once, but that's a reasonably well formatted article that uses the template effectively multiple times and is no longer drowned out by huge stub notices. MrZaiustalk 00:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Heck, see this section, I can't even see that template beneath the texts (which is only one bullet point list)! --202.71.240.18 05:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree that sectstub is a more elegant tool. See below, starting "I dislike the idea". I would, of course, be delighted to be proved wrong :) GracenotesT § 06:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Would have agreed with you a month ago, but now I believe that sectstub is a more elegant tool, and that article-wide expansion requests on non-stubs are so vague as to be meaningless. Better off just asking a question on the talk page or, better yet, throwing out an expert request. MrZaiustalk 00:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Btw, here's a decent example of a page that makes use of the template multiple times: American Samoa. Never going to find a GA that uses it even once, but that's a reasonably well formatted article that uses the template effectively multiple times and is no longer drowned out by huge stub notices. MrZaiustalk 00:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This template is appropriate for stub- and non-stub articles with sections that needs improvement.--Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- VERY strong keep. This template is incredibly useful - the trouble is it is misunderstood by many of the people using it. The expand template is used - or at least should be used - only on articles which are no longer stubs but which require major expansion, especially in those cases where expansion is specifically requested (such as cases where having a small article shows a distinct hole in WP's coverage). The template is in regular use, especially by WikiProject Stub sorting, for those articles which clearly can no longer be described as stubs. Replacing the expand template with stub templates would drastically change the definitions used of what a stub is and greatly increase the workload on WP:WSS. emoving it without replacement would remove the opportunity to signal that an article that is beyond stub size ig genuinely in need of urgent serious work. if anything, the template closer in spirit to {{sectstub}} than to stub itself, yet there are cases where sectstub is not an appropriate template to use. The main problem with it is that many editors don't realise that it should not be used on stub articles (that's what stub templates are for). And that is a problem of educating editors, not a problem with the template - as such, the nomination of the template seems to be based on a flawed belief about what the template's use actually is. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - As stated above, this template should not be used on stubs as it is, A: redundant, B: avoids introducing the helpful cat. That said, I would question the template's utility on pages and sections that could not be classified as stubs. When you reach a certain point in length, it becomes nearly meaningless to add an article-wide expansion template. How on earth can a person possibly understand what's intended by the person that adds the template, barring hunting through edit summaries? The same applies to lengthy sections. I would argue that, with excessively short articles and sections, this template overlaps in a negative way with the stub templates and that with longer articles and sections, this template is even more vague and useless than a pre-sort expert template. More targeted tools exist, and should almost always be used over this, IMHO. MrZaiustalk 00:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Thanks for pointing out those templates! I was not aware of them. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - why should it be deleted? what does 'redundant with stubs' mean? imo, all templates are useless for stubs. but {{expand |section}} is useful for real, serious articles. I just used a few of them on Jainism. Sarvagnya 01:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- It means that it's redundant with the stub template when used article wide, or poorly focused, and, when used in a section, redundant with template:sectstub, shown above. Note that there seems to be a fair number of editors that disapprove of empty sections, barring the parents to other lengthy sections such as the History parent headers found in United States and Jainism. IMHO, it should nearly always be preferable to either hold off until there's something to write or to move to the new section, or to introduce missing links to significant topic that an editor believes should be summarized in an article in the See also section until you're ready to write a short summary. MrZaiustalk 01:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as stated before, an article can need more information without expressly being a stub, especially if a particular section is undesirably short, in an otherwise acceptably complete article. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 01:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is where {{sect-stub}} comes in. Picaroon (Talk) 01:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I dislike the idea of a section stub. "stub" is a useful word for describing the state of an article in terms of assessment and topic categorization, but it serves no real purpose for a section. Instead of using Wikipedia jargon tacked on by decreased scale, why not just call it what it is: a section in need of expansion? GracenotesT § 03:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Because "stub" means "too short", just like "in need of expansion" means "too short". I'd rather type {{sectstub}} than {{sectneedingexpansion}}, wouldn't you? It's hardly jargon; it's consistency. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I dislike the idea of a section stub. "stub" is a useful word for describing the state of an article in terms of assessment and topic categorization, but it serves no real purpose for a section. Instead of using Wikipedia jargon tacked on by decreased scale, why not just call it what it is: a section in need of expansion? GracenotesT § 03:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is where {{sect-stub}} comes in. Picaroon (Talk) 01:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Like all the large, ugly blue templates, (LUBTs for short) {{expand}} is extremely overused. But my reason for wanting it deleted goes further than that. This template serves no purpose that other templates and venues do not. If an article is a stub, then the stub tag will do. If the article is not a stub and you still feel it needs expansion, there are a variety of options. One, use {{sect-stub}}. Two, leave a note on the talk page. Three, add a request at requests for expansion. Four, leave a request at the associated wikiproject of projects. And last but not least you could - GASP - do it yourself. If none of those five options for expanding a non-stub article work out, then you're in quite a pickle. Still not an excuse for a LUBT. Picaroon (Talk) 01:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The whole point of a wiki is that it's already an open invitation for expansion. It doesn't seem necessary to explicitly say so. If the shortness of a section means there are "holes," then there are probably structural issues with the article that "expand" doesn't adequately capture. Cmprince 03:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep until we at least modify the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for expansion#How to add a new listing. This template is currently part of a Wikipedia maintainence page, and therefore should not be deleted under TFD until that maintenance page has been changed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. By the very nature of Wikipedia, there are few if any articles for which there is not an invitation to improve them by expansion. —SlamDiego←T 04:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per the above. Իօնաս (forgive·disarm·unite) 04:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep of course the template can be misapplied and of course all articles can be improved, but applied specifically to a section that needs more content this template is useful and apropos. — brighterorange (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the template and it's functions; Delete the sheer bulkyness of the template and redesign it to where it's not a huge banner saying that it needs attention. The purpose of these templates is to gather them into a category to remind us that they need expanding, right? Well that can be accomplished with a much shorter, straight to the point template. Deleting it is obviously not an option as it's big part of the maintainence project here, but if we could redesign it. Another thing, if the Expand template is being missused on a article tagged as a stub, remove the expand template; while I'm not the biggest template fan for these things, deleting our problems isn't the answer. Give me a shout whenever you want to redesign and I'll help.. — Moe ε 05:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I had thought of making the template less bulky, but didn't mention it. I think that removing the second line of the template and the image will be enough to cut it down; what do you think? GracenotesT § 05:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I normally use the section stub tag, but I can see where a slightly different tag can be desired. Maybe have some guidelines on it's usage, like, use on articles with low traffic, or where the lack of information might be misleading, something like that. Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per W.marsh. In addition, it is appropriate when there is a chance of misleading the reader by omission; some times expansion is quite necessary but time doesnt permit more to be written by the person adding the template. Readability should not be put in front of Wikipedia being a work in progress. John Vandenberg 07:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- But specifically what omission? It has been my experience that this template is rarely accompanied by an explanation. Further, if an omission is so harmful that it actively misleads the reader, is a neutrality or npov tag not then appropriate? MrZaiustalk 14:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- The tags you mention are probably often suitable for the purpose I was thinking of, because they are also very general templates. Specifically, when half of the history of something is researched and recorded, and the other half is omitted, it's not really a npov or neutrality problem; its simply that it needs to be expanded. It may not be a stubby section either. John Vandenberg 15:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Per Grutness. Dfrg.msc 08:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep being used inappropriately is not a reason for deletion. This should be used in stubby sections which could reasonably be expanded. Editorial attention needs to be drawn to these areas. If it's in the wrong place, remove it. --Haemo 08:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep First of all it is important to understand what we mean with stub. In the Wikipedia jargon it is defined as A Wikipedia stub is a short article in need of expansion., that is not the same thing as the literal english meaning, somehow similar to draft. If we accept Wiki definition, then Expand is more or less the same thing, but if we look at the meaning of the word, then we must note that, while all Stub article needs to be expanded, the contrary it is always not true. I think Stub should be redefined in Wiki for what it really is. --Luca Mauri 09:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see the point. Anyone should expand things anyway.--Rambutan (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful organisational tool. Doesn't need to be quite so intrusive, though: I'd suggest reducing the size and trimming down the content a little. JulesH 16:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - A highly useful and important template. There are plenty of articles out there where the Stub template just doesn't help. This template should stay. dposse 16:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Baleet. All Wikipedia articles are under a permanent request for expansion. Besides, nobody ever uses it properly. Circeus 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - But some are in more need than others, this is where expand comes in. - perfectblue 16:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Stub is a long term template indicating that an entry is a small size and that it exhibits the potential for notable expansion. Expand is a short term maintenance template indicating that an entry is in need of immediate attention (expanding). Both fulfill different purposes. The Former is a catagorization, the latter is not, it is also an important tool for tracking and seeking pages in need of attention. - perfectblue 16:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - would anyone object if this template were deleted and replaced with something which said something like "This non-stub article is notably incomplete and could be expanded"? Such a template could then be placed on the bottom, where a stub template might otherwise go, possibly even with a "built-in" category. Doing so would make it unlikely to be used on true stub articles, and with luck lower the number of redundant usages. John Carter 17:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you mean that such a template should be used in the less notable pages, then I think it's a good idea. Then the big expand template (the one nominated for deletion here) can be used in the more important articles. - Face 17:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- How do you intend to determine "importance" and how does this template matter any less in pages that don't assert notability that have grown beyond being a stub? Also, per Carter's comment, I think that proposed rewording is just as vague/poorly-targetted as what we have now, its use of "non-stub" is clunky and would be hard for new/infrequent users decode, and its use of "notably incomplete" is just a little odd. Did you mean "noticeably"? MrZaiustalk 18:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary section break 2
- Keep, Important --SkyWalker 18:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep It nudges the passive among us. Plus this endless rampant deletionism is...
do y'all ever actually write anything??? Ling.Nut 19:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC) - Keep and reword. Before reading the comments, I was in the delete camp, due to the frequent misuse on stub articles. I think the template should be kept, with wording added to encourage editors to use a stub when appropriate.--Fabrictramp 19:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Why would someone purpose such reasonless deletion? I don't understand. This tag is useful for many articles on wikipedia because it encourages readers to help expand the article. I frequently use this tag. Chris! my talk 19:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - instead of talking about it, ain't better expanding those articles? All those cleanup templates are everywhere in the Wikipedia. They're no so important as the content. Try to collaborate instead of talking about it. Hołek ҉ 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This template allow both readers and editors know that the article as a whole can be improved to Wikipedia standards. Having the template is a constant reminder that the article is still in its infancy. -Herenthere (Talk) 21:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Extremely strong keep multiplied by itself as many times as itself is of the thing. Hi. IMO deleting this template is useless, counter-productive and unnesecary. Here's why. Out of all the articles on wikipedia, around one million require expansion. The purpose of the template and category is so that someone who is looking for something to do on wp can expand an article they are interested in. Although anybody rarely does this, there will always be someone who wants to improve wikipedia by expanding articles. You say that stubs' templates + {{expand}} = way too many expansion requests. Well, this can be solved by talking the expand category off the stub templates. Why the stubs and not the expand template? Well, the thing is, not all articles to be expanded are stubs. I mean, what's the point of expanding articles, and even improving, thus editting wikipedia in general, if you don't know which articles to improve/expand/edit?! (The encyclopedia, indeed, is very fragile. The ability to expand articles is one of these delicate points it's balanced on. The expand template and category is part of this delicate point.) It would be better if stubs themselves were rid of the expand category, and only those really in need of expansion should have the expand template. I mean, someone with the motive to expand articles need not to look for the expand category, but the stubs as well. Thus, there is no need for stubs to all have the to be expanded category. One with the knowledge to edit wikipedia should have the knowledge to look for both stubs and expand category; one smart enough to add a stub template should be smart enough to add a expand template as well but only if nessecary. People who know well wikipedia, should know that stubs are to be expanded as well as other articles. Meaning: sometimes, expand stub; stub ≠ expand. Sometimes, a stub comes with all the info one can get, thus no use to expand it. Sometimes, articles needing expansion have an abundancy of info found elsewhere that can be added, but is much too long to be a stub. If you say the removal of expand category from stub temps and cats is much too hard for a single user or group of users to handle, there are these possible solutions: user tool scripts, and semi-automatic bots. Therefore, there is no harm in following the solution listed here. It would solve the need to delete this template, the issue of multiple expand requests, and even the issue of an overabundancy of expand requests. Please consider keeping this important quality of wikipedia. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 21:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Useful especially for sections. THe tag could be revamped to make it's ues a bit less obtrusivel. Also, per the nominator's last comment in the nomination, this nomination may be indicative of "deletion nomination fetishism". - BillCJ 22:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Is definatly needed for non stubs needing expansion. Kc4 23:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - As others have said; I'm of the opinion that it is a large visual reminder, much more effective than the small stub notice would be, to readers. Also, from what I understand, it helps with categorization for editors that enjoy expanding articles - stub templates are pretty specific these days, and the more general "expand" template seems useful to me. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 23:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This seems just the thing for stubs that, for example, say that someone is head of a university, but do not give anything much further. (that's how I used it last, five minutes ago),DGG (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- That example, assuming you're talking about Marthanda Varma Sankaran Valiathan seems a clearer case against this template than not. There was a tag redirecting to {{db-bio}} expressing concern that the subject was non-notable. While the article doesn't appear to be a good speedy deletion candidate and you were probably correct to remove the offending template, a much better replacement would have been {{notability}}, as the article still lacked a sourced assertion of notability, and the stub template on the page already called for expansion. [2] Regardless of whether this template is kept or not, whenever a more specific tag is available, this template should be replaced or not used from the beginning, much like {{cleanup}} which calls for itself to be removed in favor of "a more specific message." MrZaiustalk 00:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good grief, look at this thread. What an insupportable waste of time. Ling.Nut 01:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then do a speedy close as no consensus, or snowball it as a keep.
- Good grief, look at this thread. What an insupportable waste of time. Ling.Nut 01:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep useful on non-stub articles, for articles, or sections (non-stub sections). The stub templates don't seem to indicate they are usable on sections. 132.205.44.5 02:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep it is important for incouraging other users to make an article that needs more content--SefringleTalk 03:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as said above, it's appropriate for sections and non-stubs.--Nydas(Talk) 08:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, we don't need a template to state the obvious. —Angr 09:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, if the purpose is to remind people to expand the article, change the {{stub}} template, make it larger, and put it on top of the article, not make a separate template. --Wiendietry 11:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but redesign to make a little smaller / less ugly, and to direct users to the "section stub" template.
- Whilst stub tags can be useful in 95% of instances, this template does still has its uses. Some Wikipedians, and perhaps some people who have not edited before, are prompted to act by it: if it is encouraging positive contributions to the encyclopedia, deletion would be detrimental to this site.
- An example of where I've used it where I can't think what else I should have used: I went to an article about a creature, I forget which, hoping to find details about its evolutionary history, about which I knew nothing. The article gave in-depth information about many other aspects of the organism but did not even have an "evolution" section. With insufficient knowledge to create a section stub, what would I have done without this template? Verisimilus T 14:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about bringing it up on the talk page? Morgan Wick 20:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, This template has been around for about three years and I find it very useful and have used many times for non-stub articles because as I far as I know (don't quote me one this), this is the only template that is used to signal a need for improvement on a certain section and not an entire article. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 18:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Almost every single one of the messages on Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup is either used on sections or has a section equivalent. Morgan Wick 20:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete: You know, I begin to wonder what the usefulness of these templates atop the articles are since nothing gets resolved real quickly. If something is messy, use the "Clean-up" tag. If it doesn't have enough information - more than likely it's a stub. It may have usefulness in those grey areas but in these instances I believe it would involve more of a section that is in need of expansion in which case the "section stub" would be useful. most expansion requests are to expand a stub of some type, right? master sonT - C 19:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Why are we wasting our time discussing this when we can spend the time to expand the article. If a template is useful, why would someone want to delete it. This is wasting our time. Chris! my talk 20:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- STRONG Delete: Any article can, and probably should, be expanded. Therefore, if used correctly, this tag would appear on EVERY Wikipedia article, which would make it useless. If there is something specifically "wrong" with an article, then use the appropriate tag to describe that so that editors know exactly what should be done to improve it. Telling someone to "expand" the article is too subjective... someone could add a lot of meaningful text and still not satisfy the person who added the tag. Truthanado 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Some articles do need this. This should be for articles that have passed stub status but still could have a lot more written about them. Often it's misused, placed on the article as a whole when {{expand-section}} would do. But that's no reason to get rid of it. Daniel Case 21:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Grading and classifying do the same job rather better. Besides, who is it addressed to? Only someone who knows the subject can expand usefully. --GwydionM 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is for articles or sections for which are not stubs, but need to be expanded anyway. A stub, however, is an extremely short article or section that only contains 1–2 sentences and/or has bad formatting, grammar, etc. This is used when a Start of B class article has stuff that can be expanded. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 2 days (possibly)) 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Week Keep. I believe the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. — Ian Lee (Talk) 21:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep I actually find this template very helpful. Though Chris! is right, this whole deletion process is all a waste of time, especially since the template isn't hurting anyone, nor is it "useless". I find that it gets others attention as well. Just keep it. Lord Sesshomaru
- [Edit conflict] Strong and speedy keep. Clearly this template is intended for something more than stubs and something less than complete. I don't see how the drawbacks of the template outweigh the benefits at all. --Son 21:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, quite annoying. Sometimes rendered useless. Less than 50% of all Requests for Expansion is usually Neglected (Ignored). Ellomate 22:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - This is most useful for incomplete lists. -- Petri Krohn 22:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Moreso than {{incomplete list}}? MrZaiustalk 22:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, neglected but important template for those articles in between stub status and comprehensive articles -- yes, a lot of Wikipedia. If there are "fine articles" being "defaced", either address what is probably a minor problem or discuss it with the tagger. Maybe there's something missing from the article and you don't even realize it. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, and requesting close as every day the <hr> is on top of a huge number of articles is a bad day. --User:Krator (t c) 23:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The main reason that this needs to be kept is its use on non-stub articles. Just because it's not a stub doesn't mean it doesn't have specific sections that need to be expanded. I (said) (did) 01:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, also "annoying" is not a correct reason to delete something which is useful. - Mike Beckham 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, but with Comment – Similar to other statements above, I believe that the expand tag should be deleted because: 1) it functions similarly as the stub template, 2) technically all articles could use expansion, and 3) it is large and bulky, compared to the "smaller," less noticeable stub templates. I do, however, see the point of having an "Expand" template for established articles that have specific sections which need expansion. Instead, (here's the comment) I suggest creating a new expand template or redesigning the current one so that it is not as large and bulky. Perhaps one similar in style to the stub templates, but with its own flair. --theSpectator talk 03:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant to {{stub}} and {{sectstub}} templates, which are (less obtruseively) located either at the bottom of an article or (more accurately) within the specific section that needs expanding, and I agree with theSpectator's #2 point. If someone wants to expand articles, they're welcome to browse the stub categories. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - but make it a little less intusive; this template is useful in many situations (such as when the article is not quite a stub but still needs expansion). The template's misuse should not factor into its deletion; rather, there should be a better attempt at educating users on correct use. D4g0thur 07:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep and definitely shrink it. I think {{Section stub}} is a good example of how this should look. cab 11:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- keep use may need to be adjusted & it is unneeded if as stub tag is present,) but on articles without a suitable stub tag it is useful. --Nate1481( t/c) 14:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Could a bot to remove it if a stub template is present be created?
- It could, but it wouldn't be useful. Part of the problem is that people add this and a stub template when they're not sure which an article is. Often it's the stub template which needs removing. Part of the Stub sorting process involves removing either this template or the stub template when an article is found which has both. Once stubsense is up and running again, it may be useful for us (that is, myself and the other members of WP:WSS) to see what articles use both {{expand}} and a stub template, and launch a concerted effort on them. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The whole point of wikipedia is to improve the quality of articles. It is redundant to have a box tell us this, when it should already be a priority. J-stan Talk 15:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I've used it when I knew what sections needed to be created, but wasn't able to write them all myself. The template seemed effective for that purpose. Mackan79 15:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Articles need to be expanded once in a while. You can't stub the articles you want to expand, if they're not stubs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:37 16 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's also useful for expanding certain sections. — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:45 23 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's use is well articulated by the content of the template. That being said, it could be refined and "optimized" to more effectively deliver that message. Jmfangio ► Talk 17:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This template is far too essential and useful to delete. Hydrogen Iodide 17:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – first because of all of the arguments that have come before me in this discussion (that its redundant with stub templates and that it goes without saying that articles can be expanded) and also because the Keep votes show a complete disunity in what this template is being used for. Is it for pages that aren't stubs but are still small, then why is it more obnoxious than a stub, or is it for pages that aren't even stubs they're so small, or does it not matter where you use it and you should just throw it anywhere, and who doesn't know what they're talking about, and is it usually used wrongly and who's using it wrong if it is... It goes on and on. All in all, the fact that the keep votes don't agree on what this template is even for is a strong argument for its disuse. Atropos 17:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Useful for articles that are not stubs but need to be expanded to adequately cover the topic. --Richard 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - The template is both irrelevant in stubs, and irrelevant in lengthy articles, as most lengthy articles have active discussion pages. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
- Keep - Just the fact that so many people have been drawn to this discussion is proof that this template gets noticed as much as an talk page statement. As per many of the above comments, How can you put a stub tag on a section as you can with this tag? Adam McCormick 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per Adam above, as countless people do use and see the template each and every day. Jmlk17 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. If there is a pressing need for expansion, mention it on the talk page or just do it yourself. This template encourages clutter and bad editing practices, not maintenance. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment/Keep per Beland. Perhaps this template should only be used on sections, because people may look at a page and just impulsively add this tag instead of looking at what could use more information.Snail Doom 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The "stubs do this anyway" argument doesn't work for me -- you can't flag a particular section as a stub, for instance; also, there are plenty of articles above stub length but still in need of more detail. It's a useful template to have available. Iknowyourider (t c) 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- You can use {{sectstub}} to flag a particular section as a stub. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - While the current setup may not be the best solution, it works. Until we come up with something better / cheaper / faster, I would like to continue to use this. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but limit to use for sections and lists (changing the template text accordingly). gidonb 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep – Some articles need a very visible notice that expansion is desired, and articles that need expansion aren't always necessarily stubs. — Heptite (T) (C) (@) 01:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep – I can certainly see the argument against; however, in cases where the article in question is clearly not a stub, yet need more information to be added, this template is still applicable. GlassCobra 02:24, 17 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:
- Preserve the Expand template, but make it clear that it is pointless to transclude it .
- 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.
- Remove reference to "section stubs" from Wikipedia:Stub and replace mention of it in Help:Section with reference to the post-move template.
- 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?
- 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:
 |
Please help improve this article by expanding it. See talk page or at requests for expansion and replace this template with a more specific message or request expert assistance. |
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. MrZaiustalk 02:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- Very useful as a template. Arbiteroftruth 05:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Lets other people know who are interested in the subject matter that they can help improve the article by adding sourced facts into the article. Miranda 05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Some articles (I came here from nominalism) are so atrociously incomplete and unbalanced that readers should be warned right off the bat, at the very top of the page. In Nominalism's case, the reader knows immediately upon navigating there that the article has sucked since September 2006, so be wary. That article is also a good example of why stub tags don't obviate this template; per WikiProject Philosophy, it is Start-class. Template:Sect-stub doesn't help where there aren't yet enough sections. Template:Expert probably does obviate this, though, as may some of the other more specific cleanup ones. Bottom line for this vote: If this template is deleted, thousands of articles like our friend Nominalism will be left without the cry for help they desperately need. --zenohockey 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - If the original editor can't even create an outline before abandoning the article for a lengthy period, then he shouldn't start the article at all. Likewise for later editors that can see the need for expansion but can't be bothered to point out where. {{Expand}} encourages laziness; IMHO it is better to create empty {{sectstub}}s—at least it sets out some organization and makes apparent what needs the expansion. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strongest Keep- Very useful in helping editors identify areas to expand. sometimes, even 3-4 paragraphs may not be enough to explain the subject, but may look adequate. In those situations, it becomes easy to notice that something is missing if this tag is present. Sniperz11 08:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. One 16:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly redundant, completely not useful, just another extra feature. We must simplify. -- Y not? 18:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep although perhaps we should start putting it at the bottom of articles instead of the top, so as not to give good articles an ugly banner. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It definitely fulfils a useful purpose. 86.130.182.214 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Suggest rephrasing. One suggestion is at User:Morgan Wick/Expand. Morgan Wick 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's worse, not better, as it introduces wiki jargon that doesn't really benefit the reader or editor. Any objections to the rewording above, which also allows for {{{1}}}/a piped argument to allow for a clear article-specific explanation of why the template was posted. MrZaiustalk 01:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, in principle, though I would also support rephrasing per Morgan Wick, or perhaps some other alteration. This template is far too useful to be deleted, occupying a position for articles in that gray area between stubs and complete articles. It might need de-uglifying or perhaps positioning at the bottom, but it should not be deleted. Lockesdonkey 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep Absolutely not delete -have you gone mad. The template is used in articles even if beyond a stub that editors beleive are missing invaluable information and can be significantly expanded -nothing at all wrong with this . If it helps improve wikipedia -does anyone have info to prove the tag has or has not helped improve wikipedia? This is one of our top tags surely?
As for the appearance of tags I quite frankly hate them and they look very ugly indeed but if they serve a purpose and help encourage people to improve something then why not? They are only temporary ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 21:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 21:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Temporary is relative of course since there still is Category:Articles to be expanded since May 2005. Ok, only one or two articles in there but still. I already wouldn't mind this template so much if it were less obnoxious. More like Template:Uncategorized. Garion96 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Personally I believe that{{sectstub}} is good enough for sections that need expansion because a section that would benefit by having more information could be considered a stub. Perhaps we might wish to observe the meaning of the word WP:stub Marlith 23:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to delete as it's certainly called for in certain circumstances. Badagnani 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per common sense and existing arguments... Ranma9617 01:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per Gyrofrog (it's up a fair bit). Useful for non-stubs. Better than generic cleanup.--ZayZayEM 04:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This template doesn't tell us anything we don't know already. We know that Wikipedia is incomplete, and it will always be. Because we know more all the time, it doesn't make sense to deface every second page on Wikipedia with a we don't know yet notice. That's the only purpose this template serves. All it tells us is that this article should be longer. Anybody reading the article already has a vested interest in the topic, even if they only arrived by use of the Random Article feature. It's worse than that, though. I think that it's counterproductive. It tries to act as an incentive to get editors to change the article. It is childish to assume that you have to tell an editor what they can already see themselves. A handful of editors contribute the vast majority of edits. They are able to recognise that an article is too short without a notice telling them it is too short. In short, labelling every second article amounts to the same thing as placing the little 'Under Construction' gif on every page on the Internet. It's the point of the Web and it's already implied. Let's look at two articles randomly picked which use the template: Fornax and Alumnus. They have both been tagged since January 2007. The rate of edits on Alumnus is long periods of almost nothing, with a flurry of activity roughly once a month. The rate of edits since the template was inserted is a bit greater than it was before, but it feels more like the article was due for an increase in the rate of edits, even without the template, as the community grew to be much larger. The rate of edits on Fornax seems to have gone down, and most of the edits come from the early days when the template wasn't around. I would like to see some more before-and-after comparisons to see whether the template works. The evidence is there, it's just a matter of collating a few numbers on a statistically significant sample, which should lie in the low dozens at the most. Let me put it this way: I can see absolutely no negative impact removing the Template would have considering the uselessness of it I have seen so far. Qwitchibo 11:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - draws attention to an article that needs expansion at the top of an article where a stub tag (at the bottom) does not always. Jauerback 11:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Very useful. --ざくら木 15:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant with stubs for articles, and section-stubs for sections.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Classifying an article as a stub does the exact same thing and is far more aesthetically pleasing.Bjoel5785 16:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - If a user sees an article that they know could be expanded (i.e. where they would want to use this template), then they must at least recognise how it could be expanded, i.e. have some idea what information is missing. In that case, they could for example create a section about that area of knowledge, and mark the section as a stub.
- Supersonic keep. Cleanup templates are essential for two essential wikipedians: 1) Bots 2) WikiGnomes. Without them, their essential work is harder. This templates fills the need to point out articles that are to big for {{stub}} but still need more content to be complete. {{section-stub}} is for more narrow purposes. I think this fills a void that needs to exist, one of general, non-specific expansion, for articles larger than stubs. --Cerejota 00:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom template is redunts to stubs. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 12:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - redundant on all smaller articles; harmful on larger ones. Discourages proper stub sorting. Percy Snoodle 15:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - redundant template. Wikipedia is all about expantion....no need to tell.--TheEgyptian 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Every Wikipedia article should be expanded, virtually by definition. {{Stub}} makes this explicit for very short articles. For other cases, it's redundant and pointless. If there are specific bits that need to be expanded, that's what {{sectstub}} is for! (I fairly routinely create blank sections with {{sectstub}} purely as reminders that something needs to be filled in.) I see no point in a generic "this isn't a stub but it still needs to be longer" template. If the gaps are "obvious" as some previous comments say, then it should be trivial to organize such that empty/sparse sections can be so marked. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - All articles present themselves for expansion. There is no limit to the amount of pertinant information. It served as an anti-expansion tag for article that do not have it. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary section break 3
- Keep - certain areas of an article may require expansion. This cannot be accuratley determined by the stub tag itself. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Tantamount to a "make it better" template that serves no useful purpose, but does cast a pall over articles that have it. This is different from "wikify" or "context" templates, which provide clear advice on what needs to be done to the article. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, for the exact reason outlined by Richard above: "the fact that the keep votes don't agree on what this template is even for is a strong argument for its disuse." There is utterly no consensus on what this template is actually for: many claim it's for articles which are too long to be stubs, but I've seen it on hundreds of stub articles (where it's arguably redundant). On longer articles, templates like Template:expand-sect do the job better (or simply putting a note on the Talk page). This template has no clear purpose, and as such should be deleted. Terraxos 21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oopsy daisy, that was me, Richard !voted keep. Atropos 05:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - If an article has one or more stubs on them, all of the stubs listed have a call for expanding the article. Putting a call for an article expansion template with stubs on it would be redundant in my opinion. Chris 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - This template isn't just for expansion. It allows us to highlight what specific articles need to most work. However, it needs to be redesigned, as it is quite an eyesore. --queso man 01:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - Very useful for stub articles. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Stub articles already have an expansion request, but as a much nicer looking and less obtrusive note at the end of the article. For everything else there's the talk page. We should return to using the talk page when we have ideas or suggestions on how an article could be improved. That's what talk pages are for. The article itself should be about and begin with explaining the article topic, as per the style manual, not with big distracting off topic notes about editing Wikipedia. Shanes 05:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Week conditional keep if this template is banned to talk pages like many other improvement suggestion templates (it would need a bot to do so). Otherwise, strong delete per many others as this template is ugly, obtrusive, imprecise (i.e. unhelpful), and doesn't do what other more suitable templates ({{sect-stub}}, {{expand-sect}}, {{stub}}) can't already do much better.– sgeureka t•c 10:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep, but remove from stubs. Stubs already need to be expanded, as it says on the bottom of a stub. They don't need another template on them. However, non-stubs that need expanding should be able to keep the template. themcman1 talk 10:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Stubs are extremely common in Wikipedia, and with them being at the bottom of the page, can be easily ignored by passer-byers. This template brings to light the need for more information in an article and is much more visible than a stub template. - Enzo Aquarius 15:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - serves a very useful purpose. BenB4 16:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - As said above, useful for articles in dire need of expansion which have enough information not to be classified as a stub. But make the banner more slimline. --Lakeyboy 23:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional keep: General "expand article" template should be banished to Talk pages. Specialized "expand section" template would have value. ENeville 01:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - for an example of why we need this, see Powderfinger. The section isn't a stub; the article isn't a stub, yet the section it's being used in needs a lot more information on each albums. No other template does this. Giggy UCP 03:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that it is ugly, but it serves a useful purpose. As many others have said, the best solution would probably be one that simply mandates clearer usage to prevent it flooding articlespace. TewfikTalk 08:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Although I think it is sometimes used inappropriately, it does have useful applications, not just to make editors help out, but also to inform the reader that there is a hole in the article, and that it may not represent a balanced view. Definitely keep the Expand-Section, but possibly for Expand make it have a description of what specifically is missing. I don't think the date it was tagged is as important as what the tagger thinks is missing. Sometimes I see this on an article I am familiar with, but can't think of anything off-hand that needs to be added. I agree this template needs a more clearly defined usage. Kaldosh 15:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- comment do we really have a template called "Arbitrary section break 3"? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Effectively any section of an article on Wikipedia could be improved by additional content given Wikipedia is not paper. But this is a very obtrusive tag that provides little information and tends to make articles seem deficient when they are merely works-in-progress. {{sect-stub}} is a far better template - especially as it limits the use clearly to sections with little or no content, whereas I've seen this template used on already lengthy sections just to suggest there is more to add. We have to bear in mind the reader, for whom these tags are annoying over those of us doing the maintenance. This tag isn't like a warning of OR or reliability which is necessary for the reader, they can judge for themselves if the content is lacking. And for our purposes there are better templates. WjBscribe 17:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Completely worthless, as all articles lacking in info should be expanded, other (and smaller) templates are better for this, and it usually gets added to articles where either no expansion is actually necessary (frequently on trivia lists) or where it's obvious that expansion would be helpful (stubs, which already have templates for pages and sections). DreamGuy 04:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. All Wikipedia articles are candidates for improvement. The shorter ones need to be expanded - duh - and the longer ones need to be tightened up - duh. Bots collect the tags so interested editors can find suitable articles to work on, and the stub tag is no exception. You want to expand some articles? Look in the stubs. Supposedly, the {{expand}} should not appear on stubs for this reason, but uninformed editors keep sprinkling them in anyway, and nobody takes them out. Cbdorsett 10:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are two long templates - {{long}} and {{verylong}} - and there is a short template {{expand}}. Repeat: a stub - per WP:STUB - only has a few sentences, thus an article or section doesn't have to be a stub in order to need to be expanded. It's like the square (stub) rectangle (expand) thing. --danielfolsom 10:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Helps highlight articles that really need expanding, e.g. are related to current events. EAi 13:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary section break 4
- Keep - This can be used for articles and specific sections. --AEMoreira042281 16:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - As others have stated above, this template is also useful on non-stub pages. If anything, the template should not be used on stub pages. (Personally, I feel the stubs are overused on Wikipedia, but that's a whole other issue.) I use this template on pages where I know there is more information out there that I haven't yet had the time to collect and edit myself. And it calls attention to certain part(s) of an article where editors should focus in order to make it better. Alcarillo 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- keep, of course. i can't imagine why anyone would feel the need to eliminate this template. 69.143.136.139 22:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. This template may be misused at times, but it is not redundant of stub templates; it is very helpful to identify articles and sections in need of particular attention among the millions of articles that exist. At least one WikiProject I am a member of (Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies) relies on this and similar templates to populate our own to-do lists; articles within the scope of our Project that are tagged into Category:All articles to be expanded by the template can be picked up by bot. I don't object to reformatting and even potential merges, but it should not be deleted. Additionally, it should keep its current use for sections, as often an article may only need expansion in a particular area. TAnthony 23:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This “discussion” is a perfect example of how the use of bullet list formatting combined with people obviously not reading the discussion before commenting (or generally reading the discussion after commenting) leads to a poor quality of debate. — The Storm Surfer 00:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Expansion is implicit in the Wiki structure. Anyway, stub tags handle this function far more elegantly. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All articles can be improved/expanded. --Monger 01:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep view - templates are tools to use when appropriate - why reduce the number of tools? Bridgeplayer 01:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. A most annoying and obnoxious template. Putting a stub notice at the bottom is much less obtrusive. Articles should expand naturally. Such a note just distracts from reading. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: A template being annoying is not a justification for deletion. Chris! my talk 06:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia needs to be tailored to readers, not editors. This template should not be the first thing a reader sees. If an article needs to be expanded, there are many less obtrusive ways to indicate it.
--JKeene 05:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC) - Keep - but change the way it works. It should not be the first thing a reader sees, so it would be better in a talk page. T. Moitie [talk] 06:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete -per T. Moitie --Piemanmoo 08:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per Oleg Alexandrov. @pple 10:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I've always felt this tag was redundant; almost every article bar FAs need expanding and even then some FAs are still lacking in some respects. There's no point in having a reminder of something everybody knows. How do we decide which articles need the tag more than others & if we can't, do we just place the tag on every article? Delete - Spawn Man 12:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Extremely Strong Keep∞ - Template should be used on artcles too large for a stub template. Joshua Issac 15:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I think it's been said before, but I believe it is useful for wikiprojects to be able to see what of their articles need to be expanded. That being said, why not just change it slightly and put it on the talk page. Wikipedia is for readers and it is easier to read without the template on the top of the article. Phydend 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - The need to expand should be assumed on any article under A or B class. The tag is too easy to add instead of doing the actual expanding...--Bookandcoffee 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - In my opinion, there's a difference between articles that could do with expansion and articles which ar stub. Stubs simply do not contain enough infomation to give the reader a good idea about the topic in the article. An article that needs expanding but is not cinsidered stub provides enough information to give the reader a general idea about the subject but does not provide enough information to fully explain the article. Keeping the template allows people to tell the two different articles apart. Looneyman 21:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Why not? Modest Genius talk 01:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - When I use {{expand}} I mean to say, "I've now moved this article beyond being a stub, but we have more work to do to get it comprehensive enough to be truly useful to readers." Nothing else says what this template says! (sdsds - talk) 06:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There is a template, Template:Expand-section, which has similar wording but is much more helpful. The template I mention alerts the editor that a specific section needs expanded. A generic template at the top of a non-stub article is confusing and distracting to the reader. Wikipedia:Avoid template creep. - Gilliam 06:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete use a todo list on the talk page instead. —Pengo 10:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Absolutely useless mainspace clutter which has never resulted in any article's improvement. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Wow I really didn't think I was going to see this huge thread when I followed the RFD notice after I just put this tag on an article. After trying unsuccessfuly to rememeber the {{expand-section}} template name I ended up using {{expand}} to mark the new section of the article that really needs more information to be complete. I've since changed it to the section-specific one, but without this template it never would have got marked. As I had just included the history section of the article I noticed that there were some gaps that really need to be filled in to make the article more balanced, but I was tired of researching, if readers came along I wanted to leave this as a note to them that there is clearly something else that belongs here, and that the gaps in the timeline were not intentional. In short, very useful IMHO. — xaosflux Talk 16:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It seems that the thing people have an issue with is its application, but I feel like this template serves a useful purpose in the event that an article is beyond the stub phase, yet could use some specific expansion.MichaelProcton 02:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Wishing to see non-stub (and un-sectioned) articles expanded is entirely reasonable. --moof 02:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I use this template frequently - sometimes it helps serves as wake-up call to editors who have long forgotten an article they started.
- Keep It doesn't hurt anyone, and can bring attention to others on a subject that, while short, can be expanded upon, especially by others that have more information, or knowledge on the subject. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 04:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep' {expand} is basically the article space equivalent to the Start-Class categorization scheme for talk page templates. I have no problems with it being pruned from articles that have been assigned to Start-Class via a talk page template. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete -- per Kusma (who summed it up fully and concisely). JPG-GR 04:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- Its useful and it works. 'nuf said. (BTW, this is a tainwreck if I ever saw one. We have created an internation incedent here, and its almost and hilarous as it is pathetic) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)- My apologies, it would seem that I already commented above. I missed that before; however, I stand by my comment that this is a tainwreck if I ever saw one. We have created an internation incedent here, and its almost and hilarous as it is pathetic
- Delete - Pointless for editors, IMHO, as a section needing expansion should be obvious; and intrusive and annoying for non-editors. I believe all large tags that are directed only at editors should be deleted - only those of use to readers such as current-event tags should remain. Shanes puts it well on his Why tags are evil page. Wantok (toktok) 09:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This debate is just not productive. I don't use the tag and never find it useful at all. But why do you have to delete it? I can't see a point of that action. -- Taku 10:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Use on talk pages. This template seems to be one of those which seem better on talk pages for those who are focused on editing it. --wL<speak·check> 10:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Jest Can a TfD be nominated for deletion itself? This is a candidate! :P--Cerejota 12:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Some articles are not stubs but in need of expansion (see Music festival). Yes, need of expansion is apparent but why not encourage people to do it?--Svetovid 13:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Articles which aren't stubs but still are lacking more content should be tagged as such to encourage people to expand it. MarkBA t/c/@ 14:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Svetovid and MarkBA. Useless for stubs but invaluable for longer articles that still fall far short of the mark. I am currently doing a major edit of Free Derry (10,000 bytes) as a direct result of the 'expand' template. Scolaire 15:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I use this on non-stub articles that should be expanded.--Urthogie 15:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Use on talk pages. Tagging this at the top of the article does make the encyclopedia look bad unnecessarily to readers (as opposed to an unref template, which makes it look bad necessarily - as in warning, do not trust this page.) While it might be helpful--I'm currently agnostic about that--it would serve its function just as well on the talk page. Calliopejen1 17:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I think it is time to close this debate. We got enough comments here already. Chris! my talk 17:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Aie. Best example of no consensus ever. MrZaiustalk 18:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Hi. Just to let you know, I've already listed this at WP:100. I counted the votes numerous times, and it appears that the keeps are almost always more than double the amount of deletes. So, if anyone took the time to count, they would probably see that the keeps are more than the deletes, so this would likely be a borderline keep/no consensus, depending of the results. Also, see my comment above. It's rather important for a vfd to not only be for the votes, but for the suggestions as well. I mean, so many people used up so much of their time to think up of suggestions on how to fix this problem. If nobody read the suggestions, then what's the point of writing them? This is not a majority vote! Just read the box with the red bordered exclaimation mark! Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is not an election: "If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes."
- What matters is that both the keep and delete side are making perfectly valid arguments and that neither seems willing to budge or so much as respond to the other's arguments. As such, no consensus seems most appropriate. Only holding off on closing this myself because of the proposal made above and updated on Template talk:Expand - Can't implement it without admin priveleges & no response to it to back up the compromise even if I did. MrZaiustalk 11:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Hi. Just to let you know, I've already listed this at WP:100. I counted the votes numerous times, and it appears that the keeps are almost always more than double the amount of deletes. So, if anyone took the time to count, they would probably see that the keeps are more than the deletes, so this would likely be a borderline keep/no consensus, depending of the results. Also, see my comment above. It's rather important for a vfd to not only be for the votes, but for the suggestions as well. I mean, so many people used up so much of their time to think up of suggestions on how to fix this problem. If nobody read the suggestions, then what's the point of writing them? This is not a majority vote! Just read the box with the red bordered exclaimation mark! Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Aie. Best example of no consensus ever. MrZaiustalk 18:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Useful template, and I don't really see the harm. Aaron Bowen 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, mostly harmless, but ineffective. The problem is not solved with this tag, we shouldn't keep useless solutions in our toolkit. 71.146.44.161 21:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- oops, that comment was actually from me. hateless 21:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Concur with Beland and various others above. We could consider noting in the template documentation that this would not be needed on an obvious stub article. Often articles that are not stubs still need expansion and we need a way to request that. --Parzival418 Hello 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is largely redundant with the stub boxes used in Wikipedia, and it really does not do anything to encourage the expansion of articles. No one is prompted to expand articles with this template. It simply takes up space. However, my comments are located so low on this page that I might as well delve into a story about the pink elephant named Igor who once ate too many fried mussels. Dr. Submillimeter 22:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I thought elephants were herbivores. MrZaiustalk 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I have always found this template useless. The template says that it wants you to expand the article. All articles need expansion, with the possible exception of some featured articles. Needing expansion is the nature of this encyclopedia. Why would you tag a particular article for expansion when they all need it? Royalbroil 03:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment But not all articles have the template. Obviously the template is only used in cases of a particularly severe need for expansion. --WPholic (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not all articles need expansion. See Template:long.--danielfolsom 03:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- The splitting of long articles due to length is still an expansion master sonT - C 09:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's ridiculous - since when did one article have a positive or negative effect on the length of a completely different article? If you start with article (A) and you take a chunk out of it - I don't care how much you added to article (B) article (A) is still shorter. And {{long}} doesn't require splitting, you could just remove some content (say you have uncited content you can remove) - that's not expansion at all.--danielfolsom 10:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- The splitting of long articles due to length is still an expansion master sonT - C 09:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per proposal. —זכי Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 10:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Overuse of a template is not equivalent to said template's uselessness. This template does serve as a good way to remind editors that a particular article is in need of expansion. The logic of the nomination is flawed - everything is capable of being carried to extremes, but that doesn't mean everything is bad. Template clutter in articles is a non-issue - you could simply move the template to the talk page. --WPholic (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Many users are saying that such templates clutter up an article, but that's a non-issue: they can be moved to the talk page! --WPholic (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Can we agree that this template should not be used with stub articles and thus be removed from them?--Svetovid 13:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ~ João Do Rio 18:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant with {{Sectstub}} which is far less intrusive. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Summary So Far
Seeing as this is now so long, I tried to make a neutral summary of the discussion so far, though no doubt my PoV will show through.
- Delete The delete arguments, disregarding "Get rid of most templates", are generally themes on "This template has no purpose" either because: its message should be evident to anyone who can add more content, and all articles can have more content added; There are numerous other things that do the same job in a better way ( Template:sectstub,Template:Expand list,Template:MEA-expand,Template:Expand-section,Template:Expert or the importance/quality rating scheme); it is overused and misused to such an extent it is ignored. Another theme is that it detracts from the look and feel of an encyclopedia.
- Keep The keep arguments are also variations on a theme, disregarding the "We should keep it because there is no point deleting it", namely "it has an important use which is": for anything that needs expanding that doesn't have its own template; for articles longer than stubs; for expansions requested at WP:RFE or a way of adding them to there; for important articles and stubs that need urgent expansion; for sections of articles that require expansion; for lists that are not evidently incomplete.
- Other Many people suggest making this template less intrusive either by making it smaller, or moving it to the bottom of a page, or banishing it to the talk page, or changing the wording, making it hidden - but so that it adds to WP:RFE. I expect that one of these actions is the way to go at the moment - neither team are winning at the moment.
Conrad.Irwin 20:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note that the proposal I made above is also echoed on the Template talk:Expand page and slightly updated there. This would deal with the vast majority of the issues expressed here, making the expand-section template small enough to use multiple times in an article without detracting from teh article and expanding template:expand to allow for in-template explanations and adding a note encouraging the user to do just that or replace it with an expert request. MrZaiustalk 20:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Section #5
- Keep. But make the template smaller. It's sometimes an eyesore.Vice regent 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly endorse rewording of the template to instruct its use on talk pages only. The template is too broad and too frequently misapplied to merit inclusion on articles, where it has the drawback of being in the way visually, but it's worth keeping around on talk pages for the benefit of categorization of articles with specific gaps, or for editors with specific knowledge looking for articles which are in the most need of work. Kudos to whoever coined 'template fetishism'. — Swpb talk contribs 22:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Inspires me to research the article a bit when I see it and like the topic, and I use it to tag other articles for the same reason. It is a request for help, and works. Pharmboy 23:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There are currently over 10,000 articles in the WP mainspace tagged with the expand tag, and no criteria for inclusion. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument in a deletion debate. Expansion of articles is in the spirit of the wiki; this tag has been rendered redundant and obsolete as noted above. If one is interested in particular topic(s), the stub categories would be much more relevant.- Gilliam 23:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- So I can only request a KEEP for a tag I neither like nor dislike? Sounds a bit strawman to me. My reason was that I think it is useful and works. Of course I like things that are useful, don't we all? Pharmboy 00:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but make it smaller, infact I think all templates should be made smaller, as I think they do distract from the article itself. I do think however that this template is very useful to other editors, and it may inspire many non-editors to become editors. RiseRobotRise 00:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Isn't that the idea, to distract enough to say "Hey, I'm an article with a problem, fix me!"? Pharmboy 00:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
