512:
416:
476:
315:
of articles just tells us something we already know: that the vast majority of
Knowledge 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
243:
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
165:
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
248:
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
Knowledge aspires." That seems more appropriate. --
125:
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
483:
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.
310:
This has to be one of the most pointless categories I have yet seen in
Knowledge. What on earth is it supposed to accomplish? Creating a mind-numbing category containing hundreds of thousands of completely different
522:
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
166:
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.
156:
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
244:
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
219:
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:
447:
21:
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.
192:
130:
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.
467:
209:
253:
295:
535:
401:
397:
277:
173:
493:
234:
286:
181:
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:
406:
273:
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. --
263:
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.
68:
524:
499:
329:
320:
384:
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.
379:
267:
392:) 16:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Agree, but the limit should be only 10,000. Any objections before I change the template?
359:
OK I've started labelling the templates, and doing the category magic. The last thing to change will be the template.
325:
Damn straight. Especially putting it in the main space clutters up article category space in really annoying ways.
443:
245:
148:
291:
It should clearly go on the god-damned talk page. These kind of categories on articles are incredibly annoying.
282:
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.
199:
316:
that fact, the problem is that there are only so many editors to go around, and only so many hours in a day.
37:
305:
364:
344:
86:
518:
500:
16:
422:
134:
113:
389:
26:
463:
361:
341:
142:
If the article is still not satisfactory to you perhaps {{Template:expand}} is more suited?
83:
339:
We should perhaps do this, the same way as the other major cleanup categories. Comments?
8:
65:
529:
258:
54:
188:
Putting the notice on the talk page does not help to notify readers there is a problem
264:
488:
385:
326:
292:
42:
Why are talk pages listed here? I don't see why or how these pages need expansion?
459:
283:
504:
317:
51:
30:
206:
43:
485:
393:
274:
250:
215:
I think this was a useful change to template. However, why put it in the
122:
29:. Because the universe is expanding, the articles should be, too. ;-)
105:
369:
167:
91:
334:
349:
64:
It's kind of silly to request that talk pages should be expanded.
458:
to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you.
225:... These articles should be marked with {{expansion}} at the
239:
Many articles seem to be in this category just because they
191:
There are prominent arguments that it should be that way at
372:
352:
94:
81:
Some prefer to put these types of templates on talk pages.
410:
450:), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:
454:{{subst:cfs|Articles to be expanded|Section stubs}}
202:of articles don't put it into the talk page anyway
112:The following comment is crossposted here from
446:has been listed at Categories for discussion (
185:There was no discussion here about the change
193:Template talk:Expansion#Removed bad addition
174:Removing text to put template in talk page
235:Needs expansion versus possible expansion
407:Edit request to complete CfD nomination
147:However, there is one problem. Current
151:for the {{template:expansion}} say :
133:There is an appealing suggestion at
13:
14:
546:
195:and they don't have any rebuttals
50:Because I'm a peice of crapola --
510:
474:
444:Category:Articles to be expanded
414:
380:Backlog number must be increased
246:Knowledge:Requests for expansion
321:13:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
254:10:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
1:
402:17:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
69:17:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
278:04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
268:05:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
114:User talk:Triddle#Stubsensor
17:Expansion of galaxy articles
7:
437:to reactivate your request.
425:has been answered. Set the
10:
551:
287:22:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
229:top of the article page...
330:18:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
296:18:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
170:00:46, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
536:22:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
519:Template:Expand language
501:Template:Expand language
494:17:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
468:15:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
57:03:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
46:20:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
33:16:04, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
210:17:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
135:User:Triddle/stubsensor
27:Accelerating universe
38:Talk page expansion?
121:I fully agree with
116:. Please, comment.
306:Pointless category
441:
440:
542:
514:
513:
482:
478:
477:
455:
432:
428:
418:
417:
411:
550:
549:
545:
544:
543:
541:
540:
539:
533:
528:. Thank you. --
525:discussion page
515:
511:
508:
491:
490:it has begun...
475:
473:
453:
430:
426:
415:
409:
382:
337:
308:
261:
237:
176:
108:
106:Stub vs. Expand
40:
19:
12:
11:
5:
548:
531:
509:
507:
498:
497:
496:
489:
439:
438:
419:
408:
405:
381:
378:
377:
376:
336:
335:Split by month
333:
307:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
260:
257:
236:
233:
232:
231:
221:
220:
204:
203:
196:
189:
186:
175:
172:
163:
162:
145:
144:
119:
118:
107:
104:
103:
102:
101:
100:
99:
98:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:64.192.107.242
59:
58:
39:
36:
35:
34:
18:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
547:
538:
537:
534:
527:
526:
521:
520:
506:
502:
495:
492:
487:
481:
472:
471:
470:
469:
465:
461:
456:
451:
449:
445:
436:
433:parameter to
424:
420:
413:
412:
404:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
374:
371:
367:
366:
363:
358:
357:
356:
354:
351:
347:
346:
343:
332:
331:
328:
323:
322:
319:
314:
297:
294:
290:
289:
288:
285:
281:
280:
279:
276:
272:
271:
270:
269:
266:
256:
255:
252:
247:
242:
230:
228:
223:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
208:
201:
197:
194:
190:
187:
184:
183:
182:
179:
171:
169:
161:
159:
154:
153:
152:
150:
143:
140:
139:
138:
136:
131:
129:
124:
117:
115:
110:
109:
96:
93:
89:
88:
85:
80:
79:
78:
77:
76:
75:
70:
67:
63:
62:
61:
60:
56:
53:
49:
48:
47:
45:
32:
28:
24:
23:
22:
523:
517:
516:
479:
457:
452:
442:
434:
423:edit request
383:
360:
340:
338:
324:
312:
309:
265:Zafiroblue05
262:
240:
238:
226:
224:
216:
205:
200:large number
180:
177:
164:
157:
155:
149:instructions
146:
141:
132:
127:
120:
111:
82:
41:
20:
386:Legolover26
370:15 January
128:PROMINENTLY
92:10 January
486:* Pppery *
460:JsfasdF252
448:nomination
427:|answered=
365:Farmbrough
350:1 January
345:Farmbrough
259:Talk pages
87:Farmbrough
284:Camestone
480:Not done
368:, 09:55
348:, 11:38
318:MrDarwin
90:, 19:41
52:Jtalledo
31:RussBlau
503:has an
355:(GMT).
207:Triddle
178:Hello,
44:Peb1991
532:wilson
394:Hjk321
375:(GMT).
327:john k
293:john k
275:Kjkolb
251:Kjkolb
227:bottom
217:bottom
160:pages.
137:page:
123:Ezhiki
97:(GMT).
55:(talk)
431:|ans=
421:This
313:kinds
241:could
168:Irpen
464:talk
398:talk
390:talk
373:2007
362:Rich
353:2007
342:Rich
158:talk
95:2007
84:Rich
25:See
505:RFC
429:or
530:N8
466:)
435:no
400:)
198:A
462:(
396:(
388:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.