Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:15, 14 July 2007

July 13

Template:IMSLPwork

Template:IMSLPwork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned, superceded by Template:IMSLP2. —Gabbe 23:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Integrate

Template:Integrate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Completely unused, and unless I'm mistaken, there's absolutely no difference between this and the far more common {{merge}}. --fuzzy510 21:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC). fuzzy510 21:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:List of Anime Ep TV

Template:List of Anime Ep TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template essentially does the same job as the more versatile and widely used Template:Japanese episode list. While there is some minor formating differences, there is no reason to have near-duplicate templates. --Farix (Talk) 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Just to show how easy it is to convert to Template:Japanese episode list, I've made this demonstration with List of Shuffle! episodes: before – after – difference. I also took the extra step of removing the images where were no longer in use. --Farix (Talk) 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I was using Template:Japanese episode list in List of Shin Lupin III episodes but two people opposed its nomination as a featured list because they said the list was confusing and one suggested separate columns for each part of the title (English, Kanji, and Romaji), so I switched to using Template:List of Anime Ep TV because it does that. I would switch back if this template got deleted, but I thought I'd bring this up in the discussion. For comparison, here's the list now (using List of Anime Ep TV) and then (using Japanese episode list). --AutoGyro 21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment There has been plenty of FLs that uses Template:Japanese episode list and there hasn't been any problems with them. I also don't think that list should be a FL simply because the episode summaries have been stripped off. --Farix (Talk) 21:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Currentlink-related

Template:Currentlink-related (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template does nothing anymore that {{current}} and {{current-related}} cannot do these days. I see no use for it anymore, and as a redirect its not that useful either.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant. The page has no transclusions or incoming links, so redirecting it to the others is unnecessary. -- Black Falcon 19:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, quite redundant. Gracenotes § 19:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, there's no use for this template that can't be covered by {{current-related}}. Titoxd 23:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:News sources warning

Template:News sources warning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template seems deprecated and no longer in use . --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment it appears as though this template was originally intended for these pages, but was never implemented. Gracenotes § 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Current events box BritEng

Template:Current events box BritEng (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template seems totally unused.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:List of Anime English Ep TV

Template:List of Anime English Ep TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Until recently, this template was only used on List of Serial Experiments Lain media. The template has been superseded by the more versatile and widely used Template:Japanese episode list. --Farix (Talk) 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Military Australia

Template:Infobox Military Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that can be used only in the article Australian Defence Force. It is, however, currently unused. It should be substed into the article and the template deleted, or deleted without substing. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon 16:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Standardize to {{Infobox Military}} and Delete. This looks like a single-use copy of infobox military. —MJCdetroit 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Military China

Template:Infobox Military China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that can be used only in the article People's Liberation Army. It is, however, currently unused. It should be substed into the article and the template deleted, or deleted without substing. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Standardize to {{Infobox Military}} and Delete. This looks like a single-use copy of infobox military. —MJCdetroit 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Military Azerbaijan

Template:Infobox Military Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Military of Azerbaijan. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon 16:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Standardize to {{Infobox Military}} and Delete. This looks like a single-use copy of infobox military. —MJCdetroit 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Military Austria

Template:Infobox Military Austria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Military of Austria. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Standardize to {{Infobox Military}} and Delete. This looks like a single-use copy of infobox military. —MJCdetroit 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Military Armenia

Template:Infobox Military Armenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Armed Forces of Armenia. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon 16:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Standardize to {{Infobox Military}} and Delete. This looks like a single-use copy of infobox military. —MJCdetroit 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Military Antigua and Barbuda

Template:Infobox Military Antigua and Barbuda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Royal Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon 16:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Standardize to {{Infobox Military}} and Delete. This looks like a single-use copy of infobox military. —MJCdetroit 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Military Angola

Template:Infobox Military Angola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Angolan Armed Forces. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Standardize to {{Infobox Military}} and Delete. This looks like a single-use copy of infobox military. —MJCdetroit 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Military Algeria

Template:Infobox Military Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Military of Algeria. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon 16:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Standardize to {{Infobox Military}} and Delete. This looks like a single-use copy of infobox military. —MJCdetroit 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:prose

Template:Prose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template incorrectly lectures editors that all lists should be converted into prose. This is untrue, there is no such WP policy, and in any case there are many articles that definitely need list sections. Tag used under 100 times, and should be deleted before misinformed editors spread it. — Tempshill 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep though its usage should be made clear. Sections such as Anime Detour#History and the History of podcasting#Podcast timeline should be in prose and not in a non-encyclopedic list format. When I looked at most of the article sections that where tagged with the template, I agree that most of those sections could and should be rewritten in prose. --Farix (Talk) 17:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm the first to agree that many times a list (or a list-like format) is the best way to present many types of information... but there are also many times it isn't. This template is just a step in that process, if someone adds it to something that should stay a list, remove the tag, don't convert it to prose. The tag doesn't make a change obligatory. --W.marsh 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but reword. I agree with the nominator that the current tag overstates its case but also think that can be resolved by tweaking the wording. -- Black Falcon 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Edit and keep. As has been mentioned, it needs to be made more clear that the point of the message isn't to say that lists are inherently evil. --fuzzy510 21:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A guideline exactly means "should", not "ignore me if you feel like it". Will 21:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Form the WP:MoS#Bulleted lists: "Do not use if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs. If every paragraph in a section is bulleted, it is likely that none should be bulleted." Then there is also WP:EMBED#Lists within articles: "Most Misplaced Pages articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links. Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." This is a good indication that the template does reiterate an established point that prose should be used whenever possible. --Farix (Talk) 21:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: per W.marsh. Jza84 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Lists are not evil, not even lists within an article, as they have their uses. While I've seen this template misused many times, fix the tagger, not the template. Keep. Titoxd 23:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Camp Lazlo

Template:Camp Lazlo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template has little purpose and is a remnant from when there were more articles about the series before being reduced to a few as much of what was created was non-notable as a standalone article and were merged into larger articles.. treelo _talk 11:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not Delete This template is an easy way to navigate through six article that are all related to one television show.

Keep - Seems like a perfectly good navigational template. -- Beland 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep – It's a fine navbox and there is no reason it needs to be deleted. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:New Seven Wonders

Template:New Seven Wonders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since its announcement, wikipedia articles relating to those 'wonders' both on the short list and the winners have been bombed with people wanting to add information about this. Apparently 100m votes were received for the new 'wonders'. The problem is, 1. The company promoting it is a commercial venture. 2. Judging by the media attention their marketing has already been enormously effective 3. This is a rather arbitrary list, it was condemned by UNESCO who argued that popular votes were no way to decide on the relative value of our world heritage and that it was statistically biased in favour countries with large populations with internet access - In Brazil the phone companies offered free calls to the vote and there were no checks on multiple voting! I don't think wikipedia's place is to be furthering this company's marketing campaign and why should this particular list be considered more important than any other? — Joopercoopers 10:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I was about to nominate it too. Joopercoppers, thank you keeping Misplaced Pages clear from ads. / Mats Halldin (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll see if the 100 million turn up here - but it's not a vote, it's a discussion. So if you could expand or endorse my reasoning that would be good. --Joopercoopers 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, that project is a controversial initiative which after several years of operation still has not gained general acceptance. There is absolutely no reason to promote it further here on Misplaced Pages. IMHO, templates such as this one should be limited to articles to be included in WP 1.0 (or any similar criteria.) / Mats Halldin (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is a commercial project which has no real merit and has already garnered media attention to the potential discredit of Misplaced Pages. . Paul B 11:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Since it is going to be placed on the sites themselves in some sort of endorsement. We don't place a The 100 template on Muhammad. Richard001 11:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• No delete: If this has to be deleted, then the page New Seven Wonders should be deleted, too. Apollo Augustus Koo 11:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - good idea. --Joopercoopers 11:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Well actually no - the article seems comply with WP:CORP - but spamming this template is a bridge too far. --Joopercoopers 11:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Rename it as Template:New Seven Wonders (NOWC), etc.Apollo Augustus Koo 11:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: This template gives undue prominence to a publicity stunt. The designation does not add value to the monuments -- in fact the opposite is true.--Nemonoman 11:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, don't need a navigational template for these. The New Seven Wonders of the World article is sufficient, and can be linked if necessary. Kusma (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This template gives undue prominence to a publicity stunt. It's an evasion created after consensus would not allow editors promoting the site the prominence in the lead section that they wanted. IPSOS (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Rename it or just keep it.Though,the company which hold this vote hopes to gain the profit,it is really a success wordwidely,a name like Template:New Seven Wonders (NOWC) will be ok--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Nemonoman. Tempshill 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. An article on the subject should and does exist, but the template is unnecessary and inappropriate. Only if/when this becomes a major and/or logical grouping is creation of a template warranted. At the moment, it's a publicity stunt that may fade into obscurity within a year. -- Black Falcon 16:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Rename Felipe C.S 16:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The fact that UNESCO condemns it implies that the grouping is POV. The article addresses this, so it should be kept. By nature, a template cannot, so it should not. I don't see the point of renaming templates, as only editors are aware of their names. Rigadoun (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think that the template was used in bad faith, a notion I've extracted from this discussion. Regardless, the significance (or insignificance) of the list is not yet clear, so tentative deletion is the best route. I think that adding a link to Seven New Wonders in the See Also section of articles to which is applies is a better solution, since whether academics like it or not, it is related to each monument. Gracenotes § 19:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:Recentism. As Seven wonders of the world page shows this is just one of many such compilations, and we have no reason to expect that this one will stand the test of time better than any of the previous (and undoubtedly future) efforts. So while an article on the New Seven Wonders of the World is entirely appropriate as it provides notable and verifiable information about the contest/poll/publicity stunt (depending upon the reader's POV); it yet remains to be seen if the result is a significant (as opposed to trivial) biograhical fact in the lives of the monuments themselves. Lets wait 5 years or so and see. Abecedare 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Abecedare, keep article --Astrokey44 23:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Expand

Template:Expand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template clearly is redundant with stubs. In many shorter articles marked with the Expand template, there are two or more stubs also included, amounting to three requests to help by "expanding this article". The expand template I see as defacing many fine articles or as simply an expample of 'template fetishism.' — Gilliam 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I also thought of nominating this. After reading the talk page and the useage of this template I still don't see the need for this template. Garion96 (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - see above, - Bemoeial 10:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• No delete - While I can see the arguments presented, I disagree. Take the page Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, for example. Clearly it is not a stub, and yet it clearly could do with some more information. As such, I think that this template has a valid place and should be kept. Further more, I think that the problems outlined above are not a problem with the template, but rather a misuse of the template system (there shouldn't be six different stubs on an article surely...).I ate jelly 10:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Also, see the talk page for the template, Template_talk:Expand, which has many (if not all) of the arguments that are going to come up.I ate jelly 10:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It can be useful on non-stubs, and placement is an issue with many templates (move it to the talk page if you like). Richard001 11:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, ridiculously overused. Any article on Misplaced Pages can be improved by editing, and a note on the talk page what is missing and what should be done would be more useful than this intrusive ugly template. Kusma (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• keep called for in situations with a more pressing need for expansion. A stub might article might sit under the watchful eye of editors of a topic for years without expansion, indeed sometimes it's very difficult on obscure topics, yet the stub is enough for basic information on the topic and has no real glarring omissions. But an expand tag, I personally use when for whatever reason I need to create an article or section quickly, and it needs expansion to cover the subject sufficiently. I think an expand tag alerts people to this more pressing need for work. Just because a template is mis-used sometimes doesn't mean we delete the template... --W.marsh 12:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• keep per W.marsh. I use it myself. While it may not be appropriate for all situations, in those where it is not, it should simply be removed. No need to delete a useful template. IPSOS (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If there is not information to expand, that is no point to use this. --Aleenf1 13:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? There's always more information... your comment seems unclear. --W.marsh 13:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, useful on non-stub articles. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Gyrofrog's suggestion. There are situations that an article is not a stub, yet needs more information to build on. --Blackhawk charlie2003 14:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't all articles be stubbed anyway? Smokizzy (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? No, a stub is a particularly short article. -- Beland 15:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OMG. What I meant was, all articles with this tag. Smokizzy (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. While in theory, anyone could at any moment come along and add information to an article, this tag is useful in situations where 1.) the article is too long to be considered a stub and either 2.) there is a specific request for expansion (which is what I most often use this tag for) or 3.) there are obvious gaps. We have some bot-driven systems that are categorizing tagged articles by topic and by month. These are helping people find articles they are interested in working on which actively need attention. Not every article on a given topic has obvious gaps or a specific request for elucidation, so it's useful to direct people to particular articles. Some people also enjoy working on the oldest tagged articles, and the tags are partly there to help motivate editors to jump in. Expand tags should be removed from stub articles, since one "this article needs to be longer" tag is enough, and stubs are integrated into the topical sorting system. If people don't like to see "expand" tags on perfectly good articles, they can either fill the expansion request or move it to the talk page (which is where I always drop "expand" tags, though some editors feel it is more useful on the article page where more people can see it). If editors see an "expand" tag and it's not immediately obvious what to do, they should remove it and put a note on the talk page asking for specific suggestions. -- Beland 15:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. 69.140.164.142 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it's pretty useless despite the venerable age of this template. I would prefer to see an "expand this section" tag used instead, which would be far more useful. Tempshill 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You can use {{Sectstub}} for that. Rigadoun (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per W.marsh. Anomie 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I always use this template for stub articles I find. It goes for the whole article while others I've seen are only for sections in an article. If the decision is ultimately to delete the please replace with something that does the job. This template serves as an obvious way to tell potential editors to expand the article. The stub line on the bottom of the page can sometimes go unnoticed.--_ BaRiMzI _ 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Template is appropriate for stub-articles as well as non-stub articles with sections that need improvement. To say nothing of the havoc wrought by trying to remove references from this template across (likely) over a million articles. Madcoverboy 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete-Although I think that it is a very good template in that it helps people too see which areas need expanding, I believe that it is used too sparingly, sometimes even on articles that are of good quality--The-G-Unit-Boss 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't that a reason to use the template correctly? We shouldn't be deleting templates as punishment towards users who use the template incorrectly... if that were the case, {{npov}} and many others need to go. Annoyance with people who misuse a template is a poor reason to delete a template. --W.marsh 17:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I see a few main arguments here. Argument one is that the larger tag gets more people to expand more pressing articles. If so, we would not have a backlog of articles to be expanded since 2005. This is not to say people don't expand articles - I know they do, and people who do are invaluable to the project - but that a tag doesn't denote pressing expansion at all. Argument two is that it isn't redundant with stubs, because some articles tagged with these aren't stubs. I say, then, that they're redundant with article assessment, specifically Stub-Class and Start-Class assessments. My take is that it's just template clog and should be deleted. Crystallina 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes it does... if someone adds this tag to an article I watch, I'll expand the article if it's needed. Just because some articles don't have many people watching them (and thus, maintenence tags get ignored) is a poor reason to delete the tag. --W.marsh 17:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Sometimes it can be. One difference is that I don't see this tag as important as a cleanup tag (also widely misused for that matter). It is much better to leave a message on the talk page if you want something to be expanded. Tags on the actual article should only be done for more important messages. Garion96 (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - there are generally other ways, probably more effective ways, to indicate that an article could use work in expansion, which are not quite so graphic. Also, there is no way to ensure that the template is not used indiscriminately, and on that basis it becomes functionally worthless, as there is no reason to think that it could not be legitimately added to at least half the articles in wikipedia. John Carter 17:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• keep-definitely keep,this article could certainly use some expansion in hopes of having a better one one dayGrandia01 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because it can be used to link an article to a listing at WP:RFE, which a stub cannot do. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because it leaves a large visual reminder on the article page itself, like a sticky note. -- Emana 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Any time this could be used, it should just be mentioned on the talk page. Like it has been said, every article needs to be expanded if possible. Also, the phrase "template fetishism" needs to be used more.Jay42 18:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Misplaced Pages's nature as an encyclopedia dictates that every article should be as complete as possible. Most articles could use more information to some degree. There indeed are some that have reached very close to perfection, but most fall somewhere lower than that level. It should be immediately obvious to someone reading the article how badly content is needed without a fat tag on the top informing them that the article is incomplete (someone remove the emphasis if bolding isn't allowed here). Stubs fill in the need for categorization. Scytheml 18:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I tend to see this as redundant, but if it's useful for other people I don't favor deletion. However, for people who use the tag like W.Marsh, would it not be better to provide some reason why expanding this article is of particular use (as opposed to every other article)? I'm thinking something like {{MEA-expand}} (which I've only seen used a few times), which remarks that it should be expanded because it is of priority to the Missing Encyclopedia Articles project. Perhaps different WikiProjects should have their own variation on this, and if whatever they consider their core articles are short or missing a significant area, that can be used? (Are there other templates like that?) Rigadoun (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This template helps newcomers know when an article needs more information and that they can help out too. The stubs don't really tell that an article needs expansion and most anons probably won't be visiting the talk page much. --_Hdt83 18:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Please, the crud on top of pages has to stop. We're looking for articles when we look at Misplaced Pages, not templates. This is an extremely editor-based tempolate which hurts the content of the page for readers. If you want to group articles which need work, try just placing a category on them. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 18:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: people find it useful (useful as in using it), and the tag can be removed where it is unneeded or covered by a stub template. The best solution to template fetishism is removing cleanup templates when they are not needed or redundant! The "expand section" functionality seems especially useful, since I find the idea of a {{sectstub}} a bit gawky. Gracenotes § 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a very useful template for many, many articles which need expansion. It's simple to use and can easily be removed when the article is expanded. --AW 19:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep an article can not be a stub and still need to be expanded.--danielfolsom 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It serves a different purpose than a stub. An article or section doesn't have to be a stub to need expansion. Sijo Ripa 19:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The "expand" template appears in many articles that clearly are not stubs. Just because some overeager editors put both the expand template and one or two stubs on the same page is not a valid reason for tossing out the template. StudierMalMarburg 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Useful for certain articles which get a lot of visits from occasional editors (via forums, etc.) who can't be bothered to read MoS/styleguides to let them know which sections need improving. Should be used with care, though: it's a way of letting the reader know that Misplaced Pages knows that the current content may be unacceptable. The JPS 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the template is useful to expand article.An article with expand tag can easily be noticed in Category:Articles to be expanded and Misplaced Pages:Requests for expansion.Editors can take those articles from start to featured status.--NAHID 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for nearly all attention templates. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 19:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Ugly and serves no purpose. Thousands of articles are tagged with this thing, to no avail. If people really think this is useful it can be moved to the talk page--then at least it wouldn't be an eyesore on the article itself. --Fang Aili 19:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Ugly and serves no purpose - in fact, I think it's counter-productive, since people can slap this down and feel like they've helped, instead of actually editing. You might as well have a template that says This article needs to be improved. Please improve it. - DavidWBrooks 19:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. An uneeded distraction. If an editor wants to contribute he or she will w/o the encouragement of a template. Furthermore, almost all WP articles could be expanded further. Signature 20:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't know why users call this template as ugly and does not serve purpose. This template is appropriate for stub- and non-stub articles with sections that needs improvement. --BWCNY 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per Emana and BWCNY. ZapBoy 21:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Redundant and uglier than the other option, nowadays. Check out the updated Template:Sectstub - It's now small enough to be unobtrusive and far more elegant than this and its old layout. Should replace this template, when applicable, with stub and sectstub. MrZaius 21:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: - per W. Marsh. I find this template very useful. Jza84 22:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep to me this is one of the most important templates in the whole Misplaced Pages, because it gives you the chance to mark a single section to be expanded in an existing article. Ugliness is much less important than usefulness. --Angelo 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That is Template:Expand-section which does not seem to be up for deletion here. Garion96 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The template says "Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.". In any case, it is useful as well for marking articles which need an expansion. Not all stub can be expanded (it depends on how many sources are available for them), and not all articles which need expansions are stub as well. --Angelo 00:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, show me the one that could not be expanded 32.60.106.156 22:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Angelo. KJS77 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep TomStar81 (Talk) 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; if an non-stub article needs expanding, use {{section-stub}}. Laïka 23:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This template is appropriate for stub- and non-stub articles with sections that needs improvement.--Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• VERY strong keep. This template is incredibly useful - the trouble is it is misunderstood by many of the people using it. The expand template is used - or at least should be used - only on articles which are no longer stubs but which require major expansion, especially in those cases where expansion is specifically requested 9such as cases where having a small article shows a distinct hole in WP's coverage). The template is in regular use, especially by WikiProject Stub sorting, for those articles which clearly can no longer be described as stubs. Replacing the expand template with stub templates would drastically change the definitions used of what a stub is and greatly increase the workload on WP:WSS. emoving it without replacement would remove the opportunity to signal that an article that is beyond stub size ig genuinely in need of urgent serious work. if anything, the template closer in spirit to {{sectstub}} than to stub itself, yet there are cases where sectstub is not an appropriate template to use. The main problem with it is that many editors don't realise that it should not be used on stub articles (that's what stub templates are for). And that is a problem of educating editors, not a problem with the template. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)