This page has been closed down by
community consensus, and is retained only for
historical reference. If you wish to restart discussion on the status of this page, seek community input at a forum such as the village pump. |
This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Could someone please put in <code> sections with the full syntax? Maybe something along the lines of:
To mark a single section to be expanded, use:
{{Expand|section|date=March 2010}}
Also, it would be a good idea to say that you should always include a date when marking articles. Thank you. -- 98.114.243.75 ( talk) 23:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I missed the 2007 discussion, but I do think this is a useless template. All articles on Wikipedia are in constant need of improvement, most of them, expansion. This template is quite redundant. Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Update: please note that it was decided to slowly phase out and delete this template. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
"This template has been through the deletion process. However its deletion is being opposed." O RLY? By who? Where? Why? S*T*A*R*B*O*X ( talk) 13:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.
Point number 1 is the relevant one here. Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC).
I cannot understand why, despite the fact that the deletion review for this template has been closed as "overturn to no consensus" the template remains blank. Immunize ( talk) 17:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 23#Template:Expand further closed as keep, but with a note to merge in here. This is more a mental note to myself to carry that out, but if anyone has any suggestions or comments feel free to share them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll note that {{ incomplete}} is being discussed for a redirect here. Tijfo098 ( talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It's been asked before, but I'm going to ask it again: is this template strictly for use on articles, or is it acceptable to place it on talk pages instead? Of the 21,826 pages transcluding this banner, 3432 (16%) are talk pages. If that's ok then this template should use {{ mbox}} so that it displays properly outside article space, otherwise we should consider getting a bot to move all of those talk space transclusions. PC78 ( talk) 03:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that this template when used on an entire article is hardly informative—something that was raised repeatedly in the "no consensus" deletion discussions. Tijfo098 ( talk) 17:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
Please change the type from "notice" to "content". As I read
WP:AMBOX, "notice" is meant for templates such as {{
current}} which are strictly informative without requiring any specific action. On the other hand, this template highlights an issue with an articles content and is an explicit request for editors to improve the article.
PC78 (
talk) 18:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
Please revert the above change per
WP:BRD. --
Bsherr (
talk) 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.)
- Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.
- Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.
I explained at the TfD for Template:Incomplete, but I'll explain here too. Expand is presently used on articles as an invitation to users to contribute to the content of Wikipedia. It is sometimes accompanied by advice on the talk page of the article for how the article can be expanded. Its message and use is merely to invite expansion, not to identify that the lack of content is a major problem in the article. Changing the template to content type grossly alters the message of this template. As the ombox documentation indicates, the content type is to identify major problems with an article, meaning problems of which a reader should be aware. Template:Incomplete and, for smaller issues, Template:Missing information, are already employed for this type of issue. Altering Expand to a content type template makes its placement entirely inappropriate on most of the pages on which it currently appears. It also means that the function performed by Expand as a notice no longer exists. If you think Expand as a notice should not exist, you can discuss it for deletion (for the fourth time, and be aware that, only a few months ago, there was no consensus for this). If you think Incomplete should be worded more linke Expand, we can discuss that too. But merging Incomplete into Expand will change the meaning of Expand require individual review of each use, and there is no consensus yet for such a change. -- Bsherr ( talk) 16:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's my proposal for templates covering this situation.
Missing content is a problem (content type template) | Merely suggesting possible expansion (notice type template) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Missing content generally |
Template:Incomplete
|
Template:Expand
| ||||||
Missing specific content | Template:Missing information non-contentious | Template:Expand | ||||||
Empty section | Template:Empty section | Create empty section and use Template:Empty section, or better, use Template:Expand and propose new section on talk page |
As I've said at TfD and here, I believe this view of the use of Template:Expand is consistent with the consensus understanding of the template as indicated in the 2007 TfD, the village pump discussions, and most of the 17,000 transclusions of this template. To the extent that existing templates do not confirm to this, I propose they be edited. This includes changing language in the Expand template to indicate that they are only suggestions. There has been a lot of discussion in the past about whether the Expand templates are needed at all. I ask that we defer those arguments until after the templates are all clearly delineated. I also ask that the TfD on Template:Incomplete be withdrawn until this discussion concludes. Thoughts? -- Bsherr ( talk) 16:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:AMBOX states: "The choice of colour is partly inspired by the ANSI standard safety "Signal Words" and their corresponding colors: Danger (Red), Warning (Orange), Caution (Yellow), and Notice (Blue)." Just because some of the documentation at WP:AMBOX may be incomplete and not fully reflect some of the longstanding usage of types such as "notice" does not mean it is wrong for templates such as {{ Expand}}, {{ Expand section}}, etc to use the "notice" type.
As I stated above [3] and on the RFC that was originally taking place elsewhere, [4] templates such as {{ Expand}} are not intended to be "Warning" templates, cautioning readers that something is wrong with the article or content. These templates exist solely to bring about article expansion from readers/editors, and not to "warn" or "caution" a reader. It is heavily ingrained into the English Wikipedia community that the orange colour used for "content" type templates is a warning that something is wrong with the article. There is nothing at all wrong with templates such as {{ Expand}} using the "notice" type. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 16:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm also aware of what AMBOX says. The issue here is that what AMBOX says does not reflect reality on the ground, particularly with respect to all the expand-type boxes. The AMBOX guideline sees little attention, so it's not outlandish to assume that it may need to be updated. I've encouraged Bsherr to start this discussion in part due to this observation. I need to think some more whether having multiple boxes with more-or-less the same text but different colors is the way forward. (Disclaimer: due to real life constraints, I won't be able to participate extensively in this discussion, but I'll get back to you on this before the RfC is over.) Tijfo098 ( talk) 06:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Side note: there's also a discussion of revising message box design (including their wording) due to a large number of OTRS complaints about them. See
Wikipedia:VPP#Maintenance tags.
Tijfo098 (
talk) 07:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a response to this comment from Bsherr.
My experiences (particularly with Creation–evolution controversy, but also with other articles) is as follows:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
FWIW: I was the one who suggested consciously paralleling the ANSI Signal Words (although the colors under discussion were already similar to that standard). I also wrote much of the original docs. As I recall from the discussion at the time, severity was very much the thinking. The higher up the chart at WP:AMBOX#Categories and colours you go, the more severe the problem is. "Content" meant an article was "wrong" somehow, and "needed to be fixed" in order to stand properly. "Notice" was more along the lines of "This is okay, but it could be better". It was indeed intended for improvement opportunities. So I'd say {{ expand}} very much fits under the original intent of the "Notice" category. Whether actual usage matches that, I couldn't say. Hope this helps, — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 21:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
At previous TfDs people complained about not knowing that it was going on. Can someone add, in a small font, a neutral TfD notice to the bottom of this template that will show on articles?
Link to the TfD
Gigs (
talk) 21:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Expand the template (which is relatively brief) by making it more of an invitation to readers to become editors. It's one of the least technical-sounding cleanup/improvement tags, and a so a good one to use this approach on.
Please help improve this article by expanding it using reliable sources. Further information might be found on the talk page. ( Help for getting started with editing)
PS (existing formatting of "improve this article" and "the talk page" should be kept, I just haven't bothered to copy it here). Rd232 talk 12:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Vote count??? 65–68 to 67??? Do you know WTF is consensus? Consensus is not a majority vote. Every opinion counts. Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it. An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus. A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time, which, in this case, means keep this very-very useful template. There was no compromise nor consensus here! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there a way to flag this template as being under deletion review without placing every article where it's transcluded into Category:Articles on deletion review? -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 02:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
The
deletion review ended up in an endorsement. The corresponding template should be removed from {{
Expand}}
so that users know it is okay to delete instances of the template.
Logan Talk Contributions 04:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a historical note: The plan to replace about 20k instances the template with more specific templates was an abject failure, and all the transclusions were, in the end, summarily deleted. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 10:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC).
The notice displayed above transcluded instances of this template currently reads as follows:
I think "{{Being deleted|2010 December 16}}" needs to be changed to "{{Being deleted|2010 December 16|Template:Expand}}"
DH85868993 ( talk) 11:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why the fuck would you people delete this template? Wasn't it like the most common template? Just sayin'... 71.91.96.128 ( talk) 03:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The template is now broken - it displays "Expression error: Unexpected > operator". - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 08:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with this template, it's something with the {{ Deleted template}} wrapper. Since nothing's changed with that since it was working fine, I don't know what the problem is. I've posted at WP:VPT. Rd232 talk 11:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but aren't pages kept for historical reference supposed to display the last-modified version of the template as it used to appear on pages, so that people will know what got deleted? Thereby having a better understanding of what should be used instead? Yclept:Berr ( talk) 18:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}} Template is no longer used in the article namespace. Deprecation is over, time for deletion. Artem Karimov ( talk) 23:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. - Take it to
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.
Avic
ennasis @ 03:49, 8 Av 5771 / 8 August 2011 (UTC)So what tag should I use if I think an whole article needs expansion? — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
You shouldn't.
Tagging an article with something as meaningless as "This article needs more stuff in it" helps absolutely no-one. What you need to do is, y'know, expand the article. Yourself. Add more stuff to it. 98.254.202.225 ( talk) 14:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi I have an idea why'd punt you include a code which detect if it is a template or an article or something such as a talk page or many pages so that people wo doing know which template to use can just use expand and detect if it is a template and just say what other expand template says and put it into one big template 86.173.149.162 ( talk) 17:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi I would like someone to restart this template because we could include a detect code so it will detect if it is a template and show the information for the template or it can detect an article and detect that one or something else since template:expand article is being deleted we might as well restart this template 90.211.52.178 ( talk) 13:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Could we ove all the expand templates in to module so for example we could do <includeonly>{{#invoke:Expand|name of expand}}</includeonly> it would be easer to just use the expand template and so that it would be a all in one template I doint know how to code but just making a suggestion 86.169.208.191 ( talk) 11:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Re: 3rd topic on my talk page, "Misplaced but uniquely relevant, new information: time to call house cleaning or create space so that others may have avenues for further inquiry and contribution?"
As someone new to editing, but a long time avid reader, I have come to notice more and more that Wikipedia seems to be constantly lagging behind itself in categorization and cross-linking of structure. However, I have been struggling to understand where to bring this up in the larger scheme of things. Also, I unfortunately don't personally have the time needed to create articles for any of this. More so, I do not yet have the experience required to form any perspective for proper placement or inclusion. Therefore, I bring this up in the hopes of fruitful discussion and while perhaps maybe adding some hopefully useful, but always respectful outside perspective.
As new material is roughed together, there needs to be a way to structure related articles and topics together. While it seems that individuals have, from time-to-time, stepped up so far, this can never substitute for established methods and procedures for effective organization.
Lack thereof may often lead to potentially undesirable pruning for lack of context. This is particularly troubling for those of us searching through records trying to find missing pieces of information. Too often, we discover that someone had attempted to connect new information, only to have to abandon these new sprouts, unattended, unable to take root, reach the sunshine of eager readers, nor the sustenance of earnest editors.
Generally, this is due to these new connections being quite rough and unpolished, lacking sufficient scaffolding to hold together on their own. Nevertheless, there is often a similar set of topics or articles (either already within Wikipedia or easily referenced on the web) that offers a framework that could be the template for this new growth.
Specifically, while most of the other pages that I've been researching on related topics have direct product lists/comparisons/links, often-as-not, none are listed within Wikipedia at all. Unfortunately, I personally don't have time to create articles for any of these, and am struggling just to sift through the information I have so far (aside: currently working on many hundreds of product impressions for rough comparison - business integration / custom development project).
Nevertheless, I imagine there may be some, perhaps not established, but still some means to non-disruptively tag for connection all kinds of new discovered extracts, e.g. primary materials such as currently unlisted categorical and historical web portals for text editors, outliners, email/groupware, etc.; and several very in-depth multipage expert discussions on key topics: points of comparison plus emerging and critical issues.
After discussing this on my talk page:
I also kept looking around and found this:
Having just discovered this page, and given how much prior discussion exists at both this TfD and this RFC. I am doing my best to tread softly. Please bear in mind, that I have not had the time to become familiar with contributing to Wikipedia, much less, plod through and properly understand the several pages of prior discussion.
Having said that, I do believe this Page represents potentially useful prior work, and I may perhaps have some inkling of how its content might be repurposed to address a wider problem. Not knowing what is best, I am doing my best to follow the direction given after the prior discussions were closed and posting this on Template_talk:Expand.
If I can figure out how to better frame the new structure I'm thinking of, I may repost or update this to the Village Pump. In the meantime, if anyone else knows of any examples or conventions that apply, please list them below, e.g. Taxonomy (biology).
Is there some useful way for the above content to be cross-linked to one or both of the above help articles or even the WP:Requested_articles template? Could this then be used as raw material for new help -- and perhaps eventually template -- pages, thereby providing ways and means for better intra- and inter- topic connection?
I think this would be especially useful in recruiting new Wikipedians, as there are many of us who excel at gathering, cross-referencing, and arranging information, but may not feel particularly well equipped for writing or editing. Seeing evidence of meaningful intention to substantially expand categorical and topical relevance of Wikipedia could very well induce others to seek out and join our community just for the privilege of working with such actionable tags.
In view of contributing to our community. Thank you all for creating and maintaining Wikipedia. Tree4rest ( talk) 22:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
This page has been closed down by
community consensus, and is retained only for
historical reference. If you wish to restart discussion on the status of this page, seek community input at a forum such as the village pump. |
This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Could someone please put in <code> sections with the full syntax? Maybe something along the lines of:
To mark a single section to be expanded, use:
{{Expand|section|date=March 2010}}
Also, it would be a good idea to say that you should always include a date when marking articles. Thank you. -- 98.114.243.75 ( talk) 23:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I missed the 2007 discussion, but I do think this is a useless template. All articles on Wikipedia are in constant need of improvement, most of them, expansion. This template is quite redundant. Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Update: please note that it was decided to slowly phase out and delete this template. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
"This template has been through the deletion process. However its deletion is being opposed." O RLY? By who? Where? Why? S*T*A*R*B*O*X ( talk) 13:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.
Point number 1 is the relevant one here. Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC).
I cannot understand why, despite the fact that the deletion review for this template has been closed as "overturn to no consensus" the template remains blank. Immunize ( talk) 17:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 23#Template:Expand further closed as keep, but with a note to merge in here. This is more a mental note to myself to carry that out, but if anyone has any suggestions or comments feel free to share them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll note that {{ incomplete}} is being discussed for a redirect here. Tijfo098 ( talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It's been asked before, but I'm going to ask it again: is this template strictly for use on articles, or is it acceptable to place it on talk pages instead? Of the 21,826 pages transcluding this banner, 3432 (16%) are talk pages. If that's ok then this template should use {{ mbox}} so that it displays properly outside article space, otherwise we should consider getting a bot to move all of those talk space transclusions. PC78 ( talk) 03:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that this template when used on an entire article is hardly informative—something that was raised repeatedly in the "no consensus" deletion discussions. Tijfo098 ( talk) 17:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
Please change the type from "notice" to "content". As I read
WP:AMBOX, "notice" is meant for templates such as {{
current}} which are strictly informative without requiring any specific action. On the other hand, this template highlights an issue with an articles content and is an explicit request for editors to improve the article.
PC78 (
talk) 18:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
Please revert the above change per
WP:BRD. --
Bsherr (
talk) 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.)
- Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.
- Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.
I explained at the TfD for Template:Incomplete, but I'll explain here too. Expand is presently used on articles as an invitation to users to contribute to the content of Wikipedia. It is sometimes accompanied by advice on the talk page of the article for how the article can be expanded. Its message and use is merely to invite expansion, not to identify that the lack of content is a major problem in the article. Changing the template to content type grossly alters the message of this template. As the ombox documentation indicates, the content type is to identify major problems with an article, meaning problems of which a reader should be aware. Template:Incomplete and, for smaller issues, Template:Missing information, are already employed for this type of issue. Altering Expand to a content type template makes its placement entirely inappropriate on most of the pages on which it currently appears. It also means that the function performed by Expand as a notice no longer exists. If you think Expand as a notice should not exist, you can discuss it for deletion (for the fourth time, and be aware that, only a few months ago, there was no consensus for this). If you think Incomplete should be worded more linke Expand, we can discuss that too. But merging Incomplete into Expand will change the meaning of Expand require individual review of each use, and there is no consensus yet for such a change. -- Bsherr ( talk) 16:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's my proposal for templates covering this situation.
Missing content is a problem (content type template) | Merely suggesting possible expansion (notice type template) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Missing content generally |
Template:Incomplete
|
Template:Expand
| ||||||
Missing specific content | Template:Missing information non-contentious | Template:Expand | ||||||
Empty section | Template:Empty section | Create empty section and use Template:Empty section, or better, use Template:Expand and propose new section on talk page |
As I've said at TfD and here, I believe this view of the use of Template:Expand is consistent with the consensus understanding of the template as indicated in the 2007 TfD, the village pump discussions, and most of the 17,000 transclusions of this template. To the extent that existing templates do not confirm to this, I propose they be edited. This includes changing language in the Expand template to indicate that they are only suggestions. There has been a lot of discussion in the past about whether the Expand templates are needed at all. I ask that we defer those arguments until after the templates are all clearly delineated. I also ask that the TfD on Template:Incomplete be withdrawn until this discussion concludes. Thoughts? -- Bsherr ( talk) 16:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:AMBOX states: "The choice of colour is partly inspired by the ANSI standard safety "Signal Words" and their corresponding colors: Danger (Red), Warning (Orange), Caution (Yellow), and Notice (Blue)." Just because some of the documentation at WP:AMBOX may be incomplete and not fully reflect some of the longstanding usage of types such as "notice" does not mean it is wrong for templates such as {{ Expand}}, {{ Expand section}}, etc to use the "notice" type.
As I stated above [3] and on the RFC that was originally taking place elsewhere, [4] templates such as {{ Expand}} are not intended to be "Warning" templates, cautioning readers that something is wrong with the article or content. These templates exist solely to bring about article expansion from readers/editors, and not to "warn" or "caution" a reader. It is heavily ingrained into the English Wikipedia community that the orange colour used for "content" type templates is a warning that something is wrong with the article. There is nothing at all wrong with templates such as {{ Expand}} using the "notice" type. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 16:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm also aware of what AMBOX says. The issue here is that what AMBOX says does not reflect reality on the ground, particularly with respect to all the expand-type boxes. The AMBOX guideline sees little attention, so it's not outlandish to assume that it may need to be updated. I've encouraged Bsherr to start this discussion in part due to this observation. I need to think some more whether having multiple boxes with more-or-less the same text but different colors is the way forward. (Disclaimer: due to real life constraints, I won't be able to participate extensively in this discussion, but I'll get back to you on this before the RfC is over.) Tijfo098 ( talk) 06:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Side note: there's also a discussion of revising message box design (including their wording) due to a large number of OTRS complaints about them. See
Wikipedia:VPP#Maintenance tags.
Tijfo098 (
talk) 07:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a response to this comment from Bsherr.
My experiences (particularly with Creation–evolution controversy, but also with other articles) is as follows:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
FWIW: I was the one who suggested consciously paralleling the ANSI Signal Words (although the colors under discussion were already similar to that standard). I also wrote much of the original docs. As I recall from the discussion at the time, severity was very much the thinking. The higher up the chart at WP:AMBOX#Categories and colours you go, the more severe the problem is. "Content" meant an article was "wrong" somehow, and "needed to be fixed" in order to stand properly. "Notice" was more along the lines of "This is okay, but it could be better". It was indeed intended for improvement opportunities. So I'd say {{ expand}} very much fits under the original intent of the "Notice" category. Whether actual usage matches that, I couldn't say. Hope this helps, — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 21:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
At previous TfDs people complained about not knowing that it was going on. Can someone add, in a small font, a neutral TfD notice to the bottom of this template that will show on articles?
Link to the TfD
Gigs (
talk) 21:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Expand the template (which is relatively brief) by making it more of an invitation to readers to become editors. It's one of the least technical-sounding cleanup/improvement tags, and a so a good one to use this approach on.
Please help improve this article by expanding it using reliable sources. Further information might be found on the talk page. ( Help for getting started with editing)
PS (existing formatting of "improve this article" and "the talk page" should be kept, I just haven't bothered to copy it here). Rd232 talk 12:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Vote count??? 65–68 to 67??? Do you know WTF is consensus? Consensus is not a majority vote. Every opinion counts. Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it. An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus. A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time, which, in this case, means keep this very-very useful template. There was no compromise nor consensus here! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there a way to flag this template as being under deletion review without placing every article where it's transcluded into Category:Articles on deletion review? -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 02:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
The
deletion review ended up in an endorsement. The corresponding template should be removed from {{
Expand}}
so that users know it is okay to delete instances of the template.
Logan Talk Contributions 04:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a historical note: The plan to replace about 20k instances the template with more specific templates was an abject failure, and all the transclusions were, in the end, summarily deleted. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 10:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC).
The notice displayed above transcluded instances of this template currently reads as follows:
I think "{{Being deleted|2010 December 16}}" needs to be changed to "{{Being deleted|2010 December 16|Template:Expand}}"
DH85868993 ( talk) 11:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why the fuck would you people delete this template? Wasn't it like the most common template? Just sayin'... 71.91.96.128 ( talk) 03:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The template is now broken - it displays "Expression error: Unexpected > operator". - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 08:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with this template, it's something with the {{ Deleted template}} wrapper. Since nothing's changed with that since it was working fine, I don't know what the problem is. I've posted at WP:VPT. Rd232 talk 11:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but aren't pages kept for historical reference supposed to display the last-modified version of the template as it used to appear on pages, so that people will know what got deleted? Thereby having a better understanding of what should be used instead? Yclept:Berr ( talk) 18:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}} Template is no longer used in the article namespace. Deprecation is over, time for deletion. Artem Karimov ( talk) 23:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. - Take it to
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.
Avic
ennasis @ 03:49, 8 Av 5771 / 8 August 2011 (UTC)So what tag should I use if I think an whole article needs expansion? — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
You shouldn't.
Tagging an article with something as meaningless as "This article needs more stuff in it" helps absolutely no-one. What you need to do is, y'know, expand the article. Yourself. Add more stuff to it. 98.254.202.225 ( talk) 14:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi I have an idea why'd punt you include a code which detect if it is a template or an article or something such as a talk page or many pages so that people wo doing know which template to use can just use expand and detect if it is a template and just say what other expand template says and put it into one big template 86.173.149.162 ( talk) 17:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi I would like someone to restart this template because we could include a detect code so it will detect if it is a template and show the information for the template or it can detect an article and detect that one or something else since template:expand article is being deleted we might as well restart this template 90.211.52.178 ( talk) 13:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Could we ove all the expand templates in to module so for example we could do <includeonly>{{#invoke:Expand|name of expand}}</includeonly> it would be easer to just use the expand template and so that it would be a all in one template I doint know how to code but just making a suggestion 86.169.208.191 ( talk) 11:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Re: 3rd topic on my talk page, "Misplaced but uniquely relevant, new information: time to call house cleaning or create space so that others may have avenues for further inquiry and contribution?"
As someone new to editing, but a long time avid reader, I have come to notice more and more that Wikipedia seems to be constantly lagging behind itself in categorization and cross-linking of structure. However, I have been struggling to understand where to bring this up in the larger scheme of things. Also, I unfortunately don't personally have the time needed to create articles for any of this. More so, I do not yet have the experience required to form any perspective for proper placement or inclusion. Therefore, I bring this up in the hopes of fruitful discussion and while perhaps maybe adding some hopefully useful, but always respectful outside perspective.
As new material is roughed together, there needs to be a way to structure related articles and topics together. While it seems that individuals have, from time-to-time, stepped up so far, this can never substitute for established methods and procedures for effective organization.
Lack thereof may often lead to potentially undesirable pruning for lack of context. This is particularly troubling for those of us searching through records trying to find missing pieces of information. Too often, we discover that someone had attempted to connect new information, only to have to abandon these new sprouts, unattended, unable to take root, reach the sunshine of eager readers, nor the sustenance of earnest editors.
Generally, this is due to these new connections being quite rough and unpolished, lacking sufficient scaffolding to hold together on their own. Nevertheless, there is often a similar set of topics or articles (either already within Wikipedia or easily referenced on the web) that offers a framework that could be the template for this new growth.
Specifically, while most of the other pages that I've been researching on related topics have direct product lists/comparisons/links, often-as-not, none are listed within Wikipedia at all. Unfortunately, I personally don't have time to create articles for any of these, and am struggling just to sift through the information I have so far (aside: currently working on many hundreds of product impressions for rough comparison - business integration / custom development project).
Nevertheless, I imagine there may be some, perhaps not established, but still some means to non-disruptively tag for connection all kinds of new discovered extracts, e.g. primary materials such as currently unlisted categorical and historical web portals for text editors, outliners, email/groupware, etc.; and several very in-depth multipage expert discussions on key topics: points of comparison plus emerging and critical issues.
After discussing this on my talk page:
I also kept looking around and found this:
Having just discovered this page, and given how much prior discussion exists at both this TfD and this RFC. I am doing my best to tread softly. Please bear in mind, that I have not had the time to become familiar with contributing to Wikipedia, much less, plod through and properly understand the several pages of prior discussion.
Having said that, I do believe this Page represents potentially useful prior work, and I may perhaps have some inkling of how its content might be repurposed to address a wider problem. Not knowing what is best, I am doing my best to follow the direction given after the prior discussions were closed and posting this on Template_talk:Expand.
If I can figure out how to better frame the new structure I'm thinking of, I may repost or update this to the Village Pump. In the meantime, if anyone else knows of any examples or conventions that apply, please list them below, e.g. Taxonomy (biology).
Is there some useful way for the above content to be cross-linked to one or both of the above help articles or even the WP:Requested_articles template? Could this then be used as raw material for new help -- and perhaps eventually template -- pages, thereby providing ways and means for better intra- and inter- topic connection?
I think this would be especially useful in recruiting new Wikipedians, as there are many of us who excel at gathering, cross-referencing, and arranging information, but may not feel particularly well equipped for writing or editing. Seeing evidence of meaningful intention to substantially expand categorical and topical relevance of Wikipedia could very well induce others to seek out and join our community just for the privilege of working with such actionable tags.
In view of contributing to our community. Thank you all for creating and maintaining Wikipedia. Tree4rest ( talk) 22:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)