Category talk:Articles to be expanded

Expansion of galaxy articles[edit]

Can someone tell me why there are 50 or 60 requests for expansion to galaxies and globular clusters? Unless I'm way off, we're not going to be visiting them any time soon.

See Accelerating universe. Because the universe is expanding, the articles should be, too. ;-) RussBlau 16:04, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Talk page expansion?[edit]

Why are talk pages listed here? I don't see why or how these pages need expansion? Peb1991 20:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because I'm a peice of crapola --Jtalledo (talk) 03:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's kind of silly to request that talk pages should be expanded. 64.192.107.242 17:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some prefer to put these types of templates on talk pages. Rich Farmbrough, 19:41 10 January 2007 (GMT).

Stub vs. Expand[edit]

The following comment is crossposted here from User talk:Triddle#Stubsensor. Please, comment.

I fully agree with Ezhiki in that if an article is, strictly speaking, more than just a stub, but so incomplete on the subject, that the reader needs to know it right away, then removing the stub template will do more bad than good. In such article the reader needs to be warned PROMINENTLY not to rely on the article if he looks for info on the subject and go elsewhere (perhaps to Britannica or the library) if he wants to get any clue on the topic.

There is an appealing suggestion at User:Triddle/stubsensor page:

If the article is still not satisfactory to you perhaps {{Template:expand}} is more suited?

However, there is one problem. Current instructions for the {{template:expansion}} say :

This category is for articles that are beyond a stub, but still need to be expanded with additional information or details. These articles should be marked with {{expansion}} at the top of their talk pages.

The problem is that more often than not the reader won't bother to check the talk page. I placed the {{expansion}} once on the article page itself because the article seemed very inadequate to me while going beyond the stub. Someone moved this template to the talk page. I reverted, but strictly speaking that someone was correct and I was not. We need either to change the rule of the expansion template or create another template to be placed on the main pages. Would appreciate any ideas. Irpen 00:46, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Removing text to put template in talk page[edit]

Hello,

I am going to basically revert this page to the state where it said to put the template in the bottom of the article citing the following reasons:

There was no discussion here about the change
Putting the notice on the talk page does not help to notify readers there is a problem
There are prominent arguments that it should be that way at Template talk:Expansion#Removed bad addition and they don't have any rebuttals
A large number of articles don't put it into the talk page anyway

Triddle 17:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a useful change to template. However, why put it in the bottom of the article? I would change it and suggest putting in on the top for higher prominence. I will wait whether anyone objects here, and then I would like to change the instruction as follows:

... These articles should be marked with {{expansion}} at the ~~bottom~~ top of the article page...

Needs expansion versus possible expansion[edit]

Many articles seem to be in this category just because they could be expanded, not because they don't cover the topic thoroughly enough. If increase your threshold for stub display to 2,000 or larger, you can see some of the articles that might not belong as blue links. Also, some topics may not even need to reach the 2,000 level. However, I'm not saying that isn't possible that a long article could need an expansion tag, especially in a particular section. To keep the category at a reasonable size, perhaps the criteria could be made clearer. The Wikipedia:Requests for expansion page has this, "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." That seems more appropriate. -- Kjkolb 10:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages[edit]

Any way to take out the talk pages listed here? The template generally appears on both the article and the talk page, but only one is needed. Zafiroblue05 05:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people think that the tag belongs on articles and others think it should be on talk pages, so some have it on one or the other or both. -- Kjkolb 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does anyone want to put it on the talk page? Who will see it there? It has to go on the main page obviously. Camestone 22:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should clearly go on the god-damned talk page. These kind of categories on articles are incredibly annoying. john k 18:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless category[edit]

This has to be one of the most pointless categories I have yet seen in Wikipedia. What on earth is it supposed to accomplish? Creating a mind-numbing category containing hundreds of thousands of completely different kinds of articles just tells us something we already know: that the vast majority of Wikipedia articles aren't yet complete, that there are hundreds of thousands of articles that need to be expanded, and that hundreds more are being created every day. The problem isn't that we need our attention drawn to that fact, the problem is that there are only so many editors to go around, and only so many hours in a day. MrDarwin 13:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn straight. Especially putting it in the main space clutters up article category space in really annoying ways. john k 18:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split by month[edit]

We should perhaps do this, the same way as the other major cleanup categories. Comments? Rich Farmbrough, 11:38 1 January 2007 (GMT).

OK I've started labelling the templates, and doing the category magic. The last thing to change will be the template. Rich Farmbrough, 09:55 15 January 2007 (GMT).

Backlog number must be increased[edit]

Seriously? 25 articles? The number of articles that need expansion for this to be no longer a backlog needs to be more like 50,000. Legolover26 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Agree, but the limit should be only 10,000. Any objections before I change the template? Hjk321 (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request to complete CfD nomination[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Category:Articles to be expanded has been listed at Categories for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:cfs|Articles to be expanded|Section stubs}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. JsfasdF252 (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Since this page is not protected, and it's not acceptable to proxy for blocked users. Even if proxy editing were allowed, you were prevented from starting the CfD, and Twinkle lost your rationale, so there's nothing anyone can do. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand language has an RFC[edit]

Template:Expand language has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place related to its use of this category. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --N8_wilson 22:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]