Wikipedia talk:Requests for expansion

This page was nominated for deletion on 2008-11-20. The result of the discussion was tag as historical.

Difference from Cleanup and Pages needing attention

Present content are items that have been moved from Cleanup and Pages needing attention. - SimonP 09:24, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

But some of them aren't even stubs (like SCO vs IBM), and I thought you were going to just post important stubs on here, not all of them. Ambivalenthysteria 23:12, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why just have stubs? There are several articles like Medieval warfare that couldn't be called stubs but are still missing essential content, I see no reason to limit what one can put on this page. - SimonP 04:45, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

How come this page is set out like Cleanup? It seems to me that it'd make more sense to set it up like Requested Articles. Ambivalenthysteria 04:17, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The great difficulty with Pages Needing Attention and the old way of working Find or Fix a Stub was that articles were never removed. With requested articles it is easy to see if an article has been created, but with pages like this one it is far more difficult. Arranging things chronologically encourages people to check those at the end of the list to see if they have been expanded. - SimonP

Makes sense. Ambivalenthysteria 09:46, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What's the use? Every page should be expanded

Does anybody else think this {{expansion}} tag is a bit silly and ugly? We want every page to be expanded; that's what the "edit this page" link is for. Unless we're going to add that tag to every page, I don't see the use of it. If people know something about the subject and want to write more, then they will; I'm not sure what the tag adds apart from a big lump of text at the top of the page. The old stub note was at least short and placed at the bottom of articles. Will there be an outcry if I remove uses of this tag? --Camembert

Some pages need more expansion than others. Perhaps the tag is a further means of drawing attention to those pages - see for example NAACP which needs expansion. Compare to chess which is sufficient. The edit link is not just for expansion but also for clarification, corrections, and deletions. The tag helps — for casual readers — to highlight that we recognize the article to be short but haven't addressed that yet. -- ke4roh 00:37, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sure some pages need to be expanded more than others. But the assertion of one person that a specific article needs expansion is hardly a good measure for this. --MarSch 13:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There might be an outcry. Not all pages need expanding; there are some articles that probably need contracting or at least splitting into more than one article. (Any article over 32kb in size, especially over 64kb in size, would be candidates.) I haven't come by that many expansion templates, but maybe my experience is uncommon. Perhaps {{expansion}} could be slimmed down to a one-line banner such as "Please expand this article. For further information, click here."; perhaps it could be deleted in favour of using the more specific {{expandsection}} instead. I would say expansion templates waste space if they appear on talk pages. Regards, David Kernow 17:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between this page and Wikipedia:Find_or_fix_a_stub?

Wikipedia:Find_or_fix_a_stub is described as "A stub is a very short article, generally of one paragraph or less. Most stubs fail to cover all but the most trivial subjects completely. However, this does not mean the stub is not a legitimate article - it just needs to be expanded."

This page is described as "Almost every article in Wikipedia could do with some expansion. This page is for listing those stubs, substubs and other articles that have decent information, but that you find embarrassingly short or insufficient for an encyclopedia of the stature to which Wikipedia aspires."

It appears that these two pages are doing the same job. They should be merged, yes? (Also posted to Wikipedia_talk:Find_or_fix_a_stub)JesseW 22:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really understand what's the difference between this page and Wikipedia:Pages needing attention either. Please explain... :-} JesseW 00:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, if a page needs attention, it may contain errors. However, if I am not sure, I will paste attention on it. Sometimes I also add a cleanup tag if the article's too out of the shape. Otherwise, I'll just use stub. The stub is a well-behaved and complete child. Attention is for troubled youth or adult. Expansion is for an article that failed to present one or more important aspect of a topic (one with large legs but has no arms). If something's already written and really important, I may request peer review (a college graduate that needs a test).

Attention: e.g. Unit 516 and Unit 100: The author's sloppy writing style makes me wonder if there are some mistakes unknown to me in this poorly-written article on an important subject.
Cleanup: e.g Basic soldering techniques and Soldering defects: Good articles that are just too not in the shape.
Expansion: e.g. Exoskeleton: Mentioned too much on man-made ones and too little on biological ones. I also tried to place organized section stubs so people will know how to develop the article.
Peer review: e.g. Crocodile exoskeleton: This well-written and fairly complete article is just too old.

-- Toytoy 13:18, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Reform proposal

Wikipedia:Cleanup is converting and I have proposed that Wikipedia:Pages needing attention be converted to a tag-and-category-based system instead of central listings. (And also that Pages_needing_attention essentially be merged with this page and with Cleanup.) If people like the idea of expansion-topic tags as proposed on Wikipedia talk:Pages needing attention, then Requests_for_expansion should be converted, too. I think it should be kept separate from Wikipedia:Stub categories because there are too many stubs, and there's a difference between an article that's really short vs. one that has a reasonable amount of material but would benefit from some more. -- Beland 01:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree.

I just got thru looking at the category that the {expansion} tag puts articles into, and it states explicitly that it is not for stubs, which is what this page recommends. I'd really like that clarified.

I however, do like the various means of tagging different articles, as Toytoy gave examples of above. And I'm not sure I want all of those lumped into the same page (even if they are given their own sections). Do we have something which will display sections as their own pages?

-- ~ender 2005-02-19 11:05:MST

Shouldn't this page be called...

..."Votes for dilation?"

(ducking) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ROFLOL! — Sebastian (talk) 19:45, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Oh, my... --WiiWillieWiki 16:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can articles be deleted from this list?

Is this regarded as something like a talk page, where it's a big no-no to delete contributions, or should it be pruned? I see two reasons to delete articles:

Article has been expanded
Article has been deleted
Article is not of prime encyclopedic importance. Examples:
- Clodhopper (candy)
- IBEX-35. We should rather have an article on the Madrid Stock Exchange (and redirect there).
- Dr. Edward Turner Bale If someone wants to write about him, fine. But it isn't really top priority, is it?
Article already has a natural clientele. Examples:
- Alford, Lincolnshire There are thousands of bigger towns around the world that don't have an article at all. Users who can best contribute, such as citicens, are more likely to find this article by themselves. Indiscriminately broadcasting the need to all users does more harm than good.
- Denison University Same thing. I challenge the students to prove that their alma mater deserves a good article.

Sebastian (talk) 19:52, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

I would think that items would be deleted after they are done being expanded as would be the same with most of the other requests pages, though I don't know for sure. Jtkiefer 04:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I hope so. I expanded Woodside (LIRR station) a few months ago, and the person who added that request was quite impressed with the job I did on that article. --- DanTD 00:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk or article page for template message?

Wikipedia:Requests for expansion says "...add {{expansion}} to the top of the article or its talk page.

Category:Articles to be expanded says "...{{expansion}} at the top of the article page.

Wikipedia:Template messages/All says in the 'Where it goes' column for {{expansion}}, "Talk."

Is there lack of consensus on where to put the 'expansion' template, or are the instructions on these pages out of synch?

(Cross posting this message to expansion template page) --sparkit (talk) 03:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Template locations for discussion and survey. --sparkit (talk) 15:33, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus and I am going to change the instructions to state that.CalJW 17:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this change, since that poll all the meta tempaltes, including this one, have been shifted to the talk page. Template:featured, for instance, was judged a talk page template by a much smaller margin, and it is universally on the talk pages. - SimonP 17:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all: Having the Expansion Template on the Discussion Page is REALLY confusing. I thought when I saw it that it was the Discussion Page that had to be expanded. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 05:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing up this page

In view of the length "January-June" and "July-December"?

Simple new policy?

Could we make it obligatory to bold the article title that you want expanded? Since usersnames aren't bolded just looking at the page it gets messy when skimming. I think this is a little/simple action we can take to make this page more readable. gren グレン 20:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Putting it on the front page now. Gflores ^Talk 02:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page length

There is an "automatic complaint" about the length of the page - can "someone" decide upon a suitable break point?

Jackiespeel 21:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it... is it a just a copy and paste? Gflores ^Talk 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly "rolling year" (ie from Feb or March 2005 etc). Likewise the day by day cleanup list can get rather long.

Perhaps some of the oldest "waiting to be improved" articles could be reentered again (there are very few two year old requests) - and some of the articles on the Category:Articles that need to be wikified group - eg John the Deacon.

I'm sure the page would get a lot shorter if the many articles which have already been expanded or deleted were removed. Anything older than 6 months can be removed, tagged, and comments moved to the talk page. I've put a note to this effect on the project page. -- Beland 23:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section-specific expansion request

The expansion template is used when a whole article needs expansion. I have a case where a particular section is too short, but cannot find an expand-section template or its equivalent. Does such a template exist? Thanks. 69.3.70.28 21:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Use { { e x p a n d s e c t } } without spaces Timothy Clemans 22:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete?

Is there much point in this page? It still advises people just to put {{stub}} on a page if it needs expansion, although "stub" is totally deprecated. Wouldn't it be better just to tell people to add an expandsect or stub template, then add more info on the talk page? Or even, add a standard template to the talk page that explains what needs to be expanded, and how? I don't see the value in a centralised, totally unsorted, repository of expansion requests. Stevage 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful to have a general listing of queries etc - you can only find so much using Random Article etc. Sometimes you can see a hole, but don't know where to find someone to fill it. Jackiespeel 14:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help from below

I've expanded Situated learning a bit, adding sections including an association with another article Learning object. Do ya'll need some help? Talk to me. I can help some, I think. • CQ 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How many articles can you add per a day? I add one per a day, whats the limit? Please reply.DesignForDreamingFan 06:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should expand requests always be specific?

There is some confusion about whether or not {{expand}} can be added to a article without a specific reason. My impression is that {{expand}} should be used for specific requests, not just as a way of indicating that an article is lacking. If something really is missing, one should be able to explain it. There is some discussion on Talk:Flea about this. Questions:

When adding {{expand}}, should the article always be added to WP:RFE? Or, can {{expand}} function on its own?
Should there always be a specific reason for {{expand}}?

Oasisbob 21:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles have {{expand}} and are not listed on WP:RFE. I actually prefer it that way, because then I don't have to clean up when those articles are expanded and no one knows to remove the listing here. As for specificity, instead of simply removing the template, people should either add specific ideas themselves (if it's obvious what needs expanding) or if it's unclear, ask the person who added the template for specific ideas. -- Beland 10:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that expand should only be used with a specific request, otherwise it might as well be placed on every article upon creation. Does anyone else disagree with the premise on the main page that the aim of Wikipedia is to have every article at Featured Article status? There are many topics which cannot (for lack of materials) meet the minimum length criteria which seem to apply to featured articles. --Myke Cuthbert 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length of page

Two years' worth seems to be rather long - perhaps one year's worth suffices - and selected lognstanding entries (and if nobody takes them on they are either un-expandable or non-notable) Jackiespeel 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop is Dead Conspriacy

Many people might take offense to Nas's most recently released album Hip Hop is Dead. Many people critize him about hip hop not being dead and is a disrespect to the people in the south. I find it intresting that even though Nas claims hip hop is dead is still rose on the charts to be a number 1 album in America, contributing to the belief that the dead will rise. How is his title Hip Hop is Dead disrespectful?

Bobby T.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.131.220.143 (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, this page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Requests for expansion page. Your query doesn't appear to be relevant here; you may be looking for the discussion page of the "Hip Hop Is Dead" article. Posting your e-mail address on a Wikipedia discussion page is generally inadvisable, as it may be picked up by spammers; as a precaution, I have removed it – Qxz 17:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion -- use RfE for non-stubs only?

Since there hasn't been much talk here over the past year or so, might I make a suggestion which could keep RfE to a reasonable enough length? Perhaps ask that stub articles _not_ be listed here. They appear in stub categories anyhow, and most of them are much more highly tailored to audiences which could have the expertise to expand them. It seems like "expansion" could be used only for articles beyond stub length but which are still far too short given their importance (Roman art seems like a perfect example). I suppose these articles could technically still be called stubs (I could improve "Roman art" with half an hour in a library), but I don't think current usage of the term accords with this definition. --Myke Cuthbert 00:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The National Archives

Has started up its own wiki at [1] with various requests for expansion, for those who want something more to do. Jackiespeel 21:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So does this work?

Has anyone ever actually seen an article get expanded through this process? I've submitted plenty of titles here over time and have never seen a single one get expanded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this page results in expansions, it must be very infrequent. I've just reviewed the last four weeks of edits. The only listings that were deleted were for articles that themselves had been deleted, not expanded. Some of the earlier debate on this talk page questioned whether a request for expansion (or an expansion tag) was really productive. Seems not. JimVC3 (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page is valuable and should be retained, but if not, what about the other links alongside it in Wikipedia:Article development? Unfree (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that there should be a "Random article requiring development" link on the navigation bar.

Perhaps there should be a broad grouping of "articles needing care and development" by field (however defined) rather than by category of required action (expansion, split, editing etc): one of the problems with "lists updated randomly, as found requiring attention" is that they are a total mixture. People are likely to develop articles within particular fields rather than by category of problem. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to revive this in some form

This needs to be revived as an active wikiproject as a matter of urgency. If we could get this going again, we could probably prevent a significant number of unnecessary deletion nominations of stub articles on notable topics, especially those created by inexperienced editors, simply by using RfE as a means of getting suitable references etc added to stub articles quickly. The next step would be to make such a request a compulsory precursor to relevant deletion nominations (to pre-moderate them (to make sure that if adequate coverage exists, it does get found and added to the article before we have another AfD that ends in failure)). James500 (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]