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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kill with fire. :) I never saw the point in this template. People like addings templates though so I don't think a second round would help, but one never knows. Garion96 (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be a third vote for deletion. This template tends to hang around on articles for years and doesn't seem to have any encouraging effect on expansion. - SimonP (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template is protected, so we will need an admin to nominate it (procedure). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's do it like this... One of you can write up a rationale, post it here, and I'll add the template to TfD. Fair enough? — The Earwig ^(talk) 21:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale: "All articles on Wikipedia are in constant need of improvement, most of them, expansion. This template is quite redundant. Either we add it to about ~2 million articles, or kill it. That said, I'd strongly suggest - once it is deleted - to leave the discussion page, and copy the template itself to a subpage, as it is an interesting (if misguided) part of wiki history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Template:Expand Garion96 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

The template that says that was created by User:Rich Farmbrough just before he placed it on this template. It has no prior (or subsequent) usage. The normal process for challenging a deletion discussion is deletion review. The {{Delrev}} tag can be used for that. --RL0919 (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rich Farmbrough that this template should not be deleted, and I have filed a request at deletion review. Immunize (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, I have tagged the template with this notice. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point number 1 is the relevant one here. Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Resolved

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)[reply]

Because nobody had restored visibility of the tag. Did so a couple minutes ago. Amalthea 18:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, I find {{expand-further}} more useful than this template at article-level. (Note that {{expand|section}} produces {{expand section}} however.) Expand-further is essentially a section-level template because it's intended/documented to be placed only on the "Further reading" sections. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that {{incomplete}} is being discussed for a redirect here. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Considering the wording it probably was designed to be exclusively on the article page. Gary King (talk · scripts) 04:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is any objection, I'll see about getting a bot to shift all of those talk space transclusions. PC78 (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable to me. As best I can tell, it was always intended for use on articles. Going back to the very first revision in 2004, [1] it was at least originally meant for articles. Was there a movement at some point to try to move many of these templates to talk pages? I've come across other templates of this nature in the past that seemed to have been moved from the article to the talk page. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it still seems best on the article page. When it's placed on the talk page, it easily gets lost in the clutter of talk headers and WikiProject banners. This template should be one that demands action, not merely informs like most talk page templates do. Gary King (talk · scripts) 05:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

By itself it may seem uninformative, but it carries a link to any possibloe discusssion on the talk page. It seems pointless for a template which goes on a talk page to have a link to the talk page, so it is clear that the article page was the intended place for it. What's more, it performs an analogous function to expand section, empty section, and stub templates (which are always placed on the article), and if it's placed on the talk page there's far more likelihood of it and stub templates being used together (which is specifically discouraged in the /doc and at WP:WSS). I don't think there's much doubt that the article itself is the appropriate place for the template. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{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)[reply]

That's how I read it too, therefore  Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit protected}} Please revert the above change per WP:BRD. --Bsherr (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support the orange color as well. Ironically, Bsherr brought up the issue as a sort of WP:POINT at the TfD for {{incomplete}}. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are several blue expanad-type boxes, I've started at centralized discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(article_message_boxes)#.22Expand.22_templates. Not much in the way of participation so far, I guess it needs a RfC. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disabled edit request. I'm all for BRD, but it would be nice to have a rationale for reverting the change. PC78 (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, that's not how BRD works is it?  Reverted Now it's up to the proponents to put the case for the change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "case for the change" was clearly articulated above. The case for revert was not. Besides User:Bsherr, and possibly yourself (who either rejected or reverted this on two pages so far), I do not see opposition to this type of change, but I, User:PC78, User:Tivedshambo, support it here, and User:Hrafn supported it for {{expand section}}. Like I said, I'm fine with having a centralized discussion, but insofar no arguments besides "I was merely posing it for sake of argument" (WP:POINT?) and WP:BRD have been raised by the opposition. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to explain my understanding of BRD. I classify this as a "bold" request because, although it was partially discussed the venue was not really an appropriate one. Thus for someone who was watching this template, there was effectively no discussion. In such cases, any good faith request for a revert should be accepted, because on an unprotected template they would be able to revert it him/herself, and the situation should be no different for protected templates. So it is at this stage that the discussion should commence on this page and if/when a consensus arises the request can be made again. I hope this is clear. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that is how BRD works. I made a sound case for the change, and no rationale was given for a revert. We don't revert things "just because". There needs to be a reason. PC78 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PC78, that's not correct. Here's a quote from WP:BRD.

1. 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.)
2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.
3. 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.

Hope that helps clarify. But it would be better if we could move forward by discussing the concerns I've raised, here and at the TfD of Template:Incomplete. --Bsherr (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be obtuse, and please read WP:REVEXP. If nothing else it would have been courteous to others here to have explained your reasons for wanting a revert. PC78 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfair, PC78. Two minutes before I requested the revert, I explained it fully at the TfD. --Bsherr (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should have explained it here, though. Changing the "type" for this template is a seperate issue to the redundancy of {{incomplete}}. PC78 (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same issue. By changing the type of this template, you're effectively merging Template:Incomplete into this template before the TfD has resolved. --Bsherr (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And as I've already explained myself, I believe this assessment of the template to be entirely wrong. This is not a "notice", it identifies an issue and invites editors to resolve the issue, hence it is a "content" message. Fixing this does not "grossly alter" the meaning of the template, and would not require any "individual review of each use" -- where are you getting this from? With regards to a concensus, there is presently only you arguing against this change. PC78 (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the 2007 TfD? --Bsherr (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content type means "major problem". That's right out the the ombox documentation. I'm concerned that, by changing this template to content type, it will no longer be useful for tagging articles that are not problems, but for which the template merely serves as a request for expansion. Do you have a solution for this? --Bsherr (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, as someone who was "watching this template", as Martin describes above, [2] I'm opposed to changing this template type from "notice" to "content". This and other templates such as {{Expand list}} 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. Similar can be said of the "style" type (for example, {{Cat improve}}), but it is treated as less severe than a "content" type. There is nothing at all wrong with templates such as {{Expand}} using the "notice" type. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right that this is an undocumented convention in en.wp. But WP:AMBOX gives {{globalize}} as example of content template, where the lack of information is an issue ("wrong" as you put it). {{Expand list}} is not convincing either way, because it's not a message box, just like the multitude of {{stub}} templates aren't. {{Cat improve}}, which is yellow not blue, is not mentioned in the guideline, and appears to have engendered almost no discussion on its talk page (on this or any other issue), so I don't think it's a convincing argument. Besides, categories are a marginal form of (navigational) content, so they could be considered a style issue as well. Also, {{cat improve}} was orange when created, so it's not clear how much consensus its current color has. This type of inconsistency is further exemplified by the existence of the orange {{incomplete}} template: blue (for "requires expansion") + yellow ({{cleanup}}) = orange? Tijfo098 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cat improve}} is far from the only template using the "style" type, another common example is {{More footnotes}}. For more examples, see Category:Article message boxes. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content type is used to alert readers to problems that impact the quality of the content. In other words, "be skeptical about the content of this article becuase...", e.g., it's not sourced, it's not globalized, it's factually inaccurate, it reads linke an advertisement. Less substantial issues are yellow, namely issues concerning style. Notices that do not identify problems with the article are blue, such as a notice that the article is an evolving current event, or suggestions for how to expand the article when those suggestions do not rise to being a problem (i.e. Template:Incomplete, which you are trying to delete). This isn't an undocumented convention. It's right out of the ambox documentation. --Bsherr (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my proposal for templates covering this situation.

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)[reply]

• Disagree: WP:AMBOX states that 'Notice'/blue are for "Information readers/editors should be aware of" -- almost exclusively notifying that the article/section is about some sort of current event/recent death (see WP:TMG#Timing-related messages). The only exception I can find is {{All plot}}, which appears to be mis-coloured (particularly as {{plot}} is orange). This offers no consistency basis for wanting "Merely suggesting possible expansion" to be a 'notice'. The difference between that and "Missing content is a problem" is one of degree not type -- "suggesting possible expansion"='suggesting that the article/section has insufficient content '. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]