Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for expansion


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Historical - This process has apparently outlived its usefulness, if it ever was useful; however, as a Wikipedia process it should not be deleted but kept as historical so we can see what doesn't work and so if someday someone wants to really try to make this work again, they don't have start over from scratch. The consensus was overwhelmingly to tag as historical. Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for expansion
Okay, I'm getting some friction on IRC for this, but I'm just going to go ahead and be bold. This project is clearly obsolete and useless. It has a 14 month backlog that only gets bigger, and I see no effort to bring the backlog down besides my own effort (I did get The Brothers Flub expanded at least). Judging from the discussion on the talk page, this project almost never accomplishes its intended purpose of getting articles expanded, and seems to be a complete exercise in futility. Yes, I realize there are 8 zillion expand templates everywhere, but that's another issue; only a very, very small fraction of articles with "expand" templates are actually at RFE, and issues of expansion can be brought up on article talk pages instead. I therefore think that this project should either be deleted or, at least, tagged as historical to prevent the backlog from getting any more out of control. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: The expansion tags should definitely not be deleted can use expansion requests as well as unreferenced tags in its WikiProject reports aimed at getting expert eyes. - Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, unsurprisingly, per excessive immediatism. This is a potentially useful resource; underexposure to main contributors (I had never heard of it before tonight) does not justify deletion. Just because no one is using it presently does not mean that no one should be allowed to use it, ever. Further, tagging as historical would be largely useless, since the page would still exist and would be seen. This MFD should be closed, and RFE should be promoted as a useful tool to contributors looking to help out. Glass  Cobra  20:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's hardly immediatism given that pages from 14 months ago still haven't been expanded. That hardly seems like WP:INSPECTOR to me. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or tag as historical. Maybe a good time to list expand for deletion again. Already used in over 33.000!!! articles. Garion96 (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That might not be a bad idea actually. Almost everything that isn't FA, at least in theory, needs expansion. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it probably wouldn't gain consensus. Perhaps have a bot to remove expand when it has been on an article for 6 months or so. If by then no one bothered to expand and remove the template it would show that the tag is not helpful for the article in question and can be removed. Garion96 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, i've changed my mind on the expand templates. They can stay as long as we remove the reference to RFE.  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Too bad, I think it's a shame perfectly good articles having a huge tag like this. Many for longer then a year. Garion96 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, and delete all of the expand templates as well. This is one of several non-specific/unhelpful maintenance categories used in WP.  Expansion of articles on this list slowed to a crawl around May, 2005 and now is practically non-existent.  Editor time can be used much more productively in other areas. JimVC3 (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the expand template is useful as an indication that someone has looked at an article and made the comment. Its appropriate to have a way of indicating that an article, although more than a stub, is generally inadequate. I don't see the practical point of listing them all, but i see no harm either. DGG (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be okay with at least tagging it as historical? I'm split between outright deletion and simply tagging as historical. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - no harm done, useful central place; project could easily be resurrected, perhaps by TPH as a project to occupy your time. Would suggest editing the project page to include a link to Category:Articles to be expanded in a prominent place, as the project's task list. Can't transclude cats of course, unfortunately; that would be simpler. // roux   02:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * keep "Useful" is a valid argument in MFD deletions. Just because not many people are working on it doesn't mean that it's not a valid use of a project or tag.  What else would we do with stubs, hope someone stumbles upon them and decides to flush them out?  I don't see any harm this project is doing, and USUALLY projects are not deleted or historicalized unless there is a greater reason than inactivity. 69.210.56.62 (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tag as historical, expanding an article really need expertise in the subject area so a general list of articles to expand is not such a good idea. Requests for expansions should be delegated to the wikiprojects in the same way that expert is. Taemyr (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tag as historical. I'm not yet convinced that this page cannot be ressurected. It could for example list WolterBot's cleanup reports (specifically the expansion requests) so people with multiple interests have a central location to go look for them. - Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tag as historical on the basis of TPH's assurance that the EXPAND tag would be kept, without the link. DGG (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tag as historical - Seems like good historical material to me. &mdash; neuro(talk) 06:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have split off the list of articles needing expansion, so as to prevent an inexperienced user from accidentally adding to it. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The solution is obvious. Just make a request at Requests for expansion to expand participation at "Wikipedia:Requests for expansion." -- Suntag  ☼  04:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I lol'd. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Tag as historical. Marking articles that need expansion more than others with a template makes sense. A centralised place with suggestions doesn't. I found this page by accident, following a misleading link in the expansion tag for Doggerland which said there might be suggestions here. (There are none in the archive.) An alternative, standardised, mechanism supported by participating WikiProjects would be nice, though, and once it is in place this page could be revived as a central list of links to the various relevant project pages. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That link is "misleading" because I had an admin remove the "requests for expansion" reference from the expand template, and template updates usually take a while to show up. Only a small fraction of articles tagged with expand ever made it to RFE anyway, and there're several thousand articles with expand on. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has been misleading since January, as there were never any suggestions. If the number of expand template uses mentioned above (8 zillion) is exact, then this might be an indication that there are approximately 4.2 zillion such uses in which the link is misleading in the same way, give or take a few orders of magnitude. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Tag as historical - The expand template has enought instruction for its use without a need to have a WikiProject dedicated to tagging articles with the template. The WikiProject's efforts were question in 2004 and that still hasn't changed four years later in 2008. The WikiProject seems inactive and does not seem to have been successful in working to fix the expansion issue. -- Suntag  ☼  19:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least tag historical. It may have made some sense in 2003 for this project but it does not any longer. It makes far more sense to simply make the suggestions on the article's talk page, post requests to topic wikiprojects, and if it is important enough to request attention, tag it and have it show up in appropriate categories.  D ouble B lue  (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2008 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.