Template talk:Expand article

Why this template could be useful
I created this template because:


 * The expand template is a great tool, but it needs the help! It's currently overused, and Category:Articles to be expanded is massively backlogged. One reason for the mess: a request is easy to make but can be hard to act upon. Even if the request is for specific information, there is no guarantee that a reliable source can be found with that information. The new expand further template, on the other hand, has narrow criteria for use, makes the avenue of improvement obvious, and is crystal-clear about when it should be naturally removed.
 * I've learned that I'm better at researching than writing. Probably I'm not alone, and probably there are also editors with the reverse talents. This template should aid both groups by giving us an easy outlet for all the sources we find and them ready-made lists of useful material.
 * If the template is widely used, then that means that lots of people are finding new sources. Therefore it promotes a culture of curiosity and awareness of all the pieces of human knowledge we still have the opportunity to add. Whenever you read something interesting that isn't reflected in the relevant Wikipedia article, here's a mechanism by which you can suggest it to everyone else. I hope people get in the habit of doing just that!

Thoughts, anyone? Melchoir 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While I don't know how much I'd use the template, it is a very intriguing idea. --  Zanimum 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But&hellip;
I like the idea, but isn't this overlapping with the todo) template and to-do lists? &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 15:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose it does overlap a bit, but I hope this template is simpler to use. After all, todo can be used for just about anything. This template, much like expand, will make it easier to target and fix up articles with a specific need. It also has the distinction of being more visible in the article itself; whether that's a benefit or not is less clear... Melchoir 18:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How is this different from expand? Might this not be better covered by addnig a parameter to that? ( Radiant ) 11:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Template location
Thanks for this template, it promises to be useful. I just added it to the talk page of an article that, at one time, was nominated for AFD. During the AFD I found some sources that could have been used to improve the article, but due to their technicallity I couldn't re-write the article with them. No one has since touched the article. The sources were on the talk page, hence my decision to put the template there rather then on the article page.

An advantage of this being a talk page template rather then an article template (as you seem to have intended it to be) is that a person can put notes as to what the references pertain to. On the article page they'd just be a list of "further reading". ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually think it's an advantage to have the further reading list on the article page, since it benefits readers as well as editors to be pointed to other material they might be interested in reading next. In that way a Further reading section operates rather like External links. And as long as one has such a section, I think it makes sense to include the template along with it.
 * (This is not to say that I advocate using the template on every further reading list, or even a substantial fraction of them. I think it's only warranted when the potential sources contain material of a completely different nature that isn't summarized at all by the article.)
 * I agree that it's helpful to make notes on the article's talk page, but one could do that even if the template isn't there. Melchoir 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Heads-up
There's a proposal at the new WP:Further reading that would make this template pointless. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps update this template
As the Expand template has been deprecated, it may be fortuitous to enhance this template to make it possible for people to include specific suggestions within it. This would add more options and increase its utility.

In the template's current documentation, there's a segment that reads, ..."However a bunch of people who did not understand the hereinbefore purpose !voted to merge the template "Incomplete" here. Therefore if you don't want to explicitly point to the "Further reading" section, you will need to set "further = no"." This may be confusing to editors.

It's already possible for users to include specific suggestions, but this is currently not included in the Expand further template's documentation. Also, users have to begin their sentence with the text "article." and omit a period at the sentence's end for the text to render properly. Here's example text of including suggestions:

Which creates:

Just some ideas for consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Expand article and stubs
I just noticed a stub page that uses "expand article" too. are we repeating the mistakes of "expand"? What is exactly the difference of "expand" tag and this one? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, we are repeating the same mistakes again. Don't know why this one wasn't deleted. There is barely a difference between "expand" and this one. Garion96 (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Category
Include so tht every article including the template will be out into that category for people with more information  on that topic to expand the article 109.151.163.1 (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We already have two categories, Category:Articles to be expanded with sources and Category:Articles to be expanded, as stated in the documentation. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:expand article
Couldn't we create another template with the title template:expand template and another template called template:expand page and bring back template:expand article 90.211.52.178 (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Why? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)