Template talk:Expand section/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Image required

Resolved

 – Template has documentation now.

Some image required inside template. Help please. Lara_bran 08:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Necessary?

Stale

 – Merge proposal fizzled; was re-opened later in a new topic, but became moot.

I don't think we need two...

{{tlrow2|expand|''text''}}
{{tlrow2|expand-section|''text''}}

I think {{expand-section}} should be deleted (redirected). It doesn't even say anything about "sections". If there's any good features this one has that the other doesn't, they should be incorporated into {{expand}}. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket000 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 7 October 2007

The Expand-section template has a field for a user to add comments on what needs expanding. The Expand template does not have that. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's still actually a very good argument for merging these, and having this template simply be {{expand|section=yes|[other parameters passed here]...}} I.e., consider this a renewed proposal for merger. Most "section" templates are done that way, as a parameter of the article-wide version. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Category inclusion

Resolved

 – Fixed with a namespace test.

Can the category inclusion in the template be modified a la Template:Update so that the template can be used as an example in User and Wikipedia pages without adding the maintenance categories? Thanks. Libcub (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Add a date

Resolved

 – Added as requested.

{{editprotected}}

Add a date to the template by replacing:

[[Wikipedia:Requests for expansion|requests for expansion]].</small>

With:

[[Wikipedia:Requests for expansion|requests for expansion]]. {{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}}</small>

Gary King (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

Resolved

 – Interwikis go on the /doc subpage.

Can anyone add this interwiki link? ro:Format:Extinde-secţiune I think the :ru interlanguage interwiki also does not work. Ark25 (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

White space

Resolved

 – Fixed.

{{editprotected}} The line break at the end of the switch statement falls through into the article. As a result what would be normal spacing (two returns with one blank line) becomes excessive spacing with this template. If we can either remove or comment out the line break at the end of this line:

| #default={{ns:0}}<!-- if outside accepted range of namespaces, do nothing-->}}
{{#if:{{{catanyway|}}}|

Changing it to this will fix it.

| #default={{ns:0}}<!-- if outside accepted range of namespaces, do nothing-->}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{catanyway|}}}|

I already tested this on my own web site. — CharlotteWebb 23:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like MZMcBride already got it. --Elonka 06:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the colon and the line break

Stale

 – Altered, but not in the way requested, so still inconsistent with other, similar templates.

{{editprotected}} I'm requesting a minor formatting change for the case where an argument is supplied. IMHO it not controversial so I'll be bold but its so minor that if someone has an issue it'll be trivial to undo.

Removing the colon and the line break that's in front of the first argument would make the wording flow in a way that's more consistent with the other template messages that take a similar argument. To be more specific, please remove the colon and the line break, so that this:

{{#if:{{{1|}}}|<br />with: {{{1}}}}},

becomes this:

{{#if:{{{1|}}}|with {{{1}}}}}

The goal is to make this:

Please help improve this section by expanding it with:

examples and additional citations.

looks like this:

Please help improve this section by expanding it with examples and additional citations.

Thanks. 72.244.207.5 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

I agree with that partially. But I suggest moving the "with:" up to the first line like:

{{#if:{{{1|}}}|with:<br />{{{1}}}}}

Using a more subtle style like what's discussed above would be good too. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really done. Have another look. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It needs a space before the "with:" part. I didn't think about that above, sorry. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

{{expand-section|text}}
There isn't a space between it and with. Please (re)add it. Thanks -- penubag  (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Done — {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

More subtle style

Resolved

 – Consensus finally arrived at, and new appearance stable for over 2.5 years.

I am very keen on avoiding shouting at readers with banners. Could we revert to a more subtle layout like this?

Articles with 2 or 3 sections needing expansion start to look cluttered with 2 or 3 large banners. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Isn't that how it used to be? I can't use this template any more because it is so loud. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 01:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. That's too small to readily notice while scrolling. It'll blend in with text. Something a little smaller or toned down than the current one would be alright with me though. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently is was discussed here but nobody noted the aesthetic difference. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 13:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the old style is preferable. Looks much cleaner, takes up less space. I don't think a full-out ambox is needed for this, since this is intended for short sections, having a huge box overwhelms what content, if any, is already there. If we must modify it from the original for visibility, though, why not try these? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This section requires expansion.

This section requires expansion.

I prefer the first one, just so you know. =) TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 15:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the background shading. Most anything other than white would be good, in my opinion. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Any interest in PIE EATER (ilikepie2221) smaller format suggestions above??

Yes, I rather like the first one. Anything but what we now have. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 23:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(i) Definitely would prefer any smaller template (the current one tends to be massively outsized for what are, be definition small sections). (ii) Prefer the first (unshaded) alternative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a strong consensus for a change to a smaller template and a reasonable consensus (only Fnlayson dissenting) for the first, unshaded version. Unless anybody strenuously objects in the immediate future, I intended to seek an 'edit protected' to make the change to the template. (Incidentally, the original suggestions came from Scott5114, not PIE EATER/ilikepie2221, who was only expressing a preference thereafter.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The white background would be fine with me if the text is bolded or a different color. Otherwise the template will blend in with the regular text, say while scrolling down through an article. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

Please change the template to:

This section requires expansion.

...per above consensus. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see this brought up at the village pump first. This is a very highly-used template and this is a major change. --- RockMFR 17:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Posted at WP:Village pump (proposals)#More subtle style on Expand-section template. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

After discussion at Village pump

{{Editprotected}} Per discussion here and at WP:Village pump (proposals)#More subtle style on Expand-section template, please change the template to:

This section requires expansion.

(It is a more formalised variant of the originally-most-popular first, unshaded variant, that received support from commenters who previously had supported the second, green variant.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have removed the note part ({{#if:{{{1|}}}| with:<br/>{{{1}}}}}) without any discussion. That's a major benefit of this template. This change is only supposed to involve appearance of it. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no intention of changing the functionality (though I wasn't even aware of its existence, having based my third variant on Scott5114's first two). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• No problem. That just got missed. I added the note field above. Hopefully that will work properly. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, to make this format change, replace:

|text = '''Please help [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this section] by expanding it{{#if:{{{1|}}}|<nowiki> with:
{{{1}}}}}. Further information might be found on the talk page. 

with

|text = <small>''This section requires [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expansion]{{#if:{{{1|}}}|  with:{{{1}}}}}.'' {{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}}</small>

Also change |image=[[Image:Wiki letter w.svg|36px]] to |image=[[Image:Wiki letter w.svg|17px]]. I tested this out with a template on my user space. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not done for now: Just a couple of things before I make the edit:

1. Personally I find it unnecessary to add a link to edit the page. Surely anyone with any experience of Wikipedia knows where the "edit" tab is? May I delink this?
2. I have read somewhere that <small> is depreciated and to be avoided. I would use {{small}} instead to achieve the same result. Okay?

Martin^msgj 08:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I do think that from a stylistic point of view having it linked does a good job of encouraging a timid new contributor to jump in and edit. It's not a big deal, but I think the potential benefit from that outweighs any slight redundancy. Having a link there, to me, gives off an implied message of "you can help!" ~ mazca ^t|c 09:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The existing template already contains this link-to-edit (currently hyperlinked to the label "improve this section"), so this aspect is not a change, but merely a continuation.
2. I have no problem with using {{small}} instead.
3. However, I would point out that the consensus change cannot be done with a standard {{ambox}}, so Fnlayson's proposed change does not represent the above consensus -- it merely puts small text in the same sized box as before the change. If a small box is desired, then a customised box is required. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct code to implement desired change

The visual representation of the template agreed to on the Village Pump was this:

This section requires expansion.

Fnlayson's proposed edit creates this:

(Copied from User:Fnlayson/template tester.) The two are clearly not the same. What we need is a coded version that:

1. Has the agreed upon visual aspect.
2. Has the functionality of the original (i.e. "the note part" that Fnlayson draws attention to above).

Can any coding expert make a recommendation? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I stated above. I did further testing after posting. I tried a larger icon size. fixed that above. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Even with the icon-size-change, they're clearly nothing like identical. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I did miss the align part, but otherwise that appeared the same. I gave what seemed to be the minimum change. Whatever, done. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have asked User:Davidgothberg to contribute to this discussion as he wrote the {{ambox}} template. Martin^msgj 10:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am here.

1: I agree with the small left-aligned design, it is very nice. And it is good that it keeps the "ambox look".

2: Give me some days to think about how to best code this. Since I bet we will want to use this for more article message boxes. So we need a meta-template, or rather we should probably add this as a small option to the {{ambox}} itself, as we did with the {{ombox}} and {{tmbox}}. But I will probably do a simple implementation in this {{expand-section}} template first, to save you guys some waiting.

3: There are a little more that needs discussing. Although we can of course tweak this after deploying the first version. Anyway, so people can start to think about it, here goes:

4: The {{current sport-related}} message box has used a small style for quite some time now. But it is instead right floating. But I think I prefer the left aligned variant as suggested above, since then it doesn't mix up with images and infoboxes. (Note for the geeks among us: There is also a technical difference between "float" and "align".)

5: The size and style of the text. The suggested style above uses smaller text than the small option in {{ombox}} and {{tmbox}}. And the suggested style here uses italic text. I don't know which text style I prefer until I have tested some variants.

5: The image in the suggested style here is 17px wide. While the other mboxes uses 30px wide images when small. But I think 30px is probably a bit too much in this case. But perhaps a little bigger, like 20px or so. I'll come back later with some different variants so we can have a look.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The alignment on the right looks quite good in my opinion and would improve the layout of the page. Maybe some effort can be spared here and the small ambox be used. Martin^msgj 12:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with David that a left-align works better than a right-float for a subtle-notice-template (as opposed to an info-template, such as sport). Thinking it through, I suspect that upright text may work better than italic (but hadn't previously been sufficiently concerned as to buck Scott5114's examples, when I created my own variant). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How about a centered box? settings the margin to auto achives this:

Or

Just my two cents. --Nezek (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This does not do what you expect on FF3, and also throws away virtually every careful boxflow tweak that's been built into the mbox templates to improve reliability on a wide range of browsers. Happy‑melon 18:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware it's a total hack (:. But it can very well be implemented correctly if only float: right wasn't in the way. What does it break exactly? I don't have FF3 available. --Nezek (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Let the meta-template cabal assemble forthwith :D
I also think this is a good idea; I also like the retention of the ambox look, which has become fairly iconic. However as noted there are number of technical details to be ironed out. I personally think that this will propagate as far up as a new class in MediaWiki:Common.css, .mbox-small-left or somesuch, for maximum flexibility. Working out how best to implement this, both on this fundamental level and how best to propagate it down through the template structure we've already got, to make it available to templates like this one, requires quite a bit of thought. Happy‑melon 18:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the best way to do this is to remove float: right off .mbox-small, and add a classes for general left and right floating templates. The same kind of flexibility is used for images with .tright. What do you think? --Nezek (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nezek: The box flow issues are too complex to explain shortly here. (We probably should write a how-to-guide on that some day.) Anyway, here are some of the box flow issues: For instance "margin: auto;" is not understood in several older browsers, thus causing the box to align to the left side of the page in those browsers. Also, when you have a centred box, if you don't use all the tricks we use in ambox, then right floating boxes such as infoboxes and image thumbnails will overlap the message box even in some of the newest browsers. Yes overlap, as in cover parts of it.

Getting rid of the "float: right;" is easy, just feed "style = float: none;" to the ambox. But there are several other things that also need adjusting when we want the box on the left side, like the "clear" and the margins. And when we make the ambox small we need to adjust the size of the left image cell, and that is pretty tricky.

Removing the "float: right;" code from the ".mbox-small" class would wreak havoc with the existing message box system for the other namespaces. And as I explained above, several other things need adjusting too. So I agree with Happy-melon: In the end the best way will probably be to add an .mbox-small-left class. Or at least hard code the corresponding styles into the meta-template.

So I/we have an offer: You guys can simply leave the implementation technical details to me and Happy-melon. That saves us from spending pages explaining those details, and saves you guys time since you don't need to code this stuff. What we do need from you guys is advice/opinions/consensus on how things should look. So, here goes:

Here are some examples of text styles and image sizes. The first box uses italics, <small> size and a 17px image, as in the original example above. The rest of the boxes use non-italic text and the slightly larger text size used in the small option for the other mboxes. Their images have these sizes: 17px, 20px, 23px, 25px.

I think I prefer the non-italic text with the mbox-small size. And the 20px or 23px image size.

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah! now that you explained the secrets of that whole mess to me, have I automatically joined the cabal? :P sure feel like it!

Although that sounds like a mess... I think I can help with arranging these things. I'm very interested in the aspect of collaborating on the internals of Wikipedia, and the code is a big part of that. I think I might take a look at the CSS more thoroughly soon and make a few suggestions on one of the MediaWiki css pages. --Nezek (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Non-italic definitely looks better. 20px looks good to me. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nezek: Anyone may join the meta-template cabal, but be warned, you can never leave! And yes, since you have taken part in this discussion you have already joined. Muahaha!

My technical explanations above was just a teaser. There is much much more to this. Well, making a hard coded version here at {{expand-section}} is fairly easy. But integrating the "small=left" option into the {{ambox}} is a way larger undertaking. If you want to learn more about that then you need to read through the entire talk page histories of {{ambox}} and the other mboxes. And study their code and edit histories. And do some serious testing with several web browsers. That'll keep you busy for quite some time...

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, for those who think they can handle the hardcore technical details, let's take the technical details to under the moonstones. Dress code is full robes; magic staffs are compulsory for acolytes and above... :D Happy‑melon 12:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy-melon: I agree, let's move the tech part of the discussion there.

Everyone: But we still need advice/opinions/consensus on how things should look. And that we can discuss here.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Details about the look (section break 1)

I just noticed there's an option that allows adding details to what needs to be expanded, how will this affect the width of the message? should the text still be in bold? doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose of making it smaller? --Nezek (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nezek:

1: As I interpret the discussions above and the discussion over at the Village pump the new style should not have any bold text.

2: I think the message box should use fixed width, just as we do with all other mboxes, both the usual large centred ones, and the right floating {{ombox}} and {{tmbox}} variants. There are a whole number of practical, layout and technical reasons why fixed width is the better option. The simplest reason being that if two or more small boxes are stacked on top of each other it looks really bad if they have different widths. So for simplicity I think we should use the same width as for the right floating boxes: 238px. And that is the width I used in my examples above.

3: Thanks for the reminder about the parameter to feed extra text. Well, there's no problem to have extra text in a small box. That text too can have the smaller text size and will line wrap as usual, so a small box can have more than one line of text. Below is how the box could look, first with the default short text and then with the same extra text fed to it as in the example in the documentation of the template:

1: {{expand-section}}

2: {{expand-section|examples and additional citations}}

I think it looks very nice this way.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but can it be made a little wider? At 238px, Opera line-wraps the text. That might be a bug in Opera's rendering, but I don't think users of other browsers would mind an extra pixel (239px is enough for it not to wrap). —JAO • T • C 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

JAO: That's weird. I took a look in all of my browsers, among them my slightly old Opera 9.02, and I see the same thing in all of them: I see only one line of text in my example 1 above, and there is plenty of white space after the text. But I do see a line wrap between "with:" and "examples" in example 2 above, and there a few pixels extra would not do any difference. If you are seeing a line wrap in example 1 then I guess you are using some special setting for the text size in your browser.

In any case, I am thinking of doing a change that will give many more pixels of space for the text: I am thinking of using slightly less padding around the image than in the examples we see above. Both because I think that might look better (but I haven't yet had the time to test what looks best), and because it would simplify the CSS code for ambox in MediaWiki:Common.css. But please don't ask me to explain the technical details about that, since then I will never have the time to add the "small=left" feature to {{ambox}}. (And that's template hell for you: Make a bunch of nifty templates, and then you're stuck forever answering questions about them instead of improving them or writing other nifty templates.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. My version is slightly old too, although a bit newer: 9.10. To the best of my knowledge, I don't have any special settings. I've noticed this in wikitable column widths too, where someone presumably fixed the width to the maximum no-wrap value on their browser, and I got it word-wrapped on mine (here, for example, the Agg. column read "2 -[linebreak]0" in my Opera (but fine in Firefox). I only just now tried googling this issue and so far I've found nothing, so maybe there is something in my settings. —JAO • T • C 22:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, the "Agg." column in the example you link to doesn't line wrap in any of my browsers. (I have a very old IE 5.5, Opera 9.02 and Firefox 2.0.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it was my settings! If you're still interested, I found out that the reason was that my default sans-serif font in Opera was set to Verdana. So it has nothing to do with Opera at all, it's just that Verdana is larger (I get the same result in Firefox if I set it to Verdana). This probably means that I will keep widening columns (by 1 pixel), as people do use Verdana, but at least now I know the correct edit summary to use! —JAO • T • C 08:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

JAO: Ah thanks for coming back and reporting what it was. It always feels better when we know what happened. And as an old web master I am aware of the silly thing that the web browsers render different fonts in different sizes, in spite that we set them to the same "size". Thus when changing font the layout often breaks. If you use Firefox then you can set the default font size 1px lower when using Verdana to fix it, but I can't find such a setting in Opera.

But yeah, it usually is wise to leave a little extra space after the text in columns since you never know how things render on other web browsers and other operating systems and so on. Some of my friends read Wikipedia from mobile hand-held units and who knows how each of those devices render pages...

But I still I think we should not change the width of this message box. Since we are going to use this width for all the section boxes. And if they have different sizes it will look bad when two or more of them are used at the same time in a section. So I think it is up to the box editors to keep the text in the boxes short. That is, we are now going to deploy the "small=left" feature of {{ambox}}, so it will be very easy to build this kind of small section boxes. Of course, the exact width to use for the "small=left" amboxes can be discussed, but it has a whole bunch of technical advantages if the left-aligned and right-floating mboxes use the same width. But I am probably off-topic now, discussions about that should probably be done over at Template talk:Mbox#Left-aligned small box.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ready to deploy (section break 2)

I have now made the hand coded small version of this template over at {{expand-section/sandbox}}, and I have a bunch of test cases in the /testcases page. So this is now ready to deploy. We will later add this as the "small=left" feature in {{ambox}} itself.

But there's a small issue: The "date=March 2009" parameter. I'd like to not show it in these small boxes, since I makes them two-liners thus destroying their compactness. Here's how it looks with no or a hidden date parameter:

And here's how it looks with a visible "date=March 2009" parameter:

And here's how it looks with a non-wrapping "date=March 2009" parameter:

Note that we have bots going around adding the date parameter thus all instances of this box will have that date parameter. The purpose of the date parameter is to sort pages into different date stamped categories. And I think since we have bots taking care of adding the parameter we no longer need to show humans if the parameter has been added or not.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with not showing the date. The preference should be to keep it as small as possible, even with a comment showing (which should hopefully be short -- the topic of what a stub-section needs should not evoke an essay). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Y Done - I have now deployed a hand-coded small version of this message box. We will later use the new "small=left" feature in {{ambox}}, which we are currently adding and testing for the {{ambox}}.

Hrafn: Thanks for the agreeing. So the version I just deployed doesn't show the date parameter, but it of course uses the date parameter for its categorising.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just don't forget talk=section --bitbit (pka Nezek) ^(talk) 05:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

bitbit/Nezek: Care to elaborate on what you mean?

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

New style too narrow

I have not followed the discussion on this in detail, but I thought that the more subtle style was going to be an option, not forced on all uses of the template.

As it is, the new style is too narrow - even a modest amount of text in the box makes the template take more space and stand out more than the former (wider) style did. (See for instance Privacy#Philosophy of privacy. This problem is made worse for those who use larger fonts (i.e. it works against accessibility). (Try enlarging fonts a couple sizes (Ctrl+ a couple times in Firefox) to see what it looks like).

Making the box wider would make it stand out less (wouldn't have to go as tall as soon). Zodon (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

An idea to fix this would be to use the default large ambox style if a reason is supplied. I have coded this behavior in the sandbox, and you can see it in action on the testcases page. Widening the box would also work just as well. --Blooper (Talk) 02:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be confusing to have different styles depending on whether or not there is a reason. Simply widening the box (or possibly making it variable-width?) would be better. —JAO • T • C 12:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Using the larger style if there was a reason specified would help. The documentation could help to reduce confusion.

However it would not totally address the problem, since the small style uses a fixed width box, whether one has a huge, wide-screen monitor or a small notebook, or whether one uses very large fonts, or small ones, the box is always the same width. Making it wider in general would help, a variable width based on font size might also help. Zodon (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Expanding on Jao's idea. How about using the same (small-style) box for both, but specifying that the width is larger (e.g. 60px) if the extra-text field is added? I would probably be opposed to a variable-size however (and I'm using a super-wide 1920x1200 screen). And I'm not altogether sure that any change is necessary. How many long extra-text examples are there in the wild (how often is this feature used at all for that matter)? You should not be writing essays within these boxes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have coded the variable width behavior in the sandbox. It will expand to 300px when additional reasons are given. It also accepts a width=[number] parameter for when a reason is given. Hopefully this will be a better solution than using a full ambox. --Blooper (Talk) 22:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This results in considerable whitespace (≈ 1/3 the box) for the extra-text test-case. Playing around with the test-cases, the variable-width will make use of the additional width for text, but only in the 2nd line and thereafter (there's a hard-coded carriage return after the "expansion with:" -- we may wish to remove this as it reduces the value of the variable width for less-than-unreasonably-long extra-text). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we first should take a look at how people use the explanation parameter. That is, how long texts people use. I have spent some time looking at "What links here" for this template but didn't find any cases, so they seem rare. But this template is used on more than 13,000 pages.

So I have now made it so this template reports all such cases into the hidden Category:Wikipedia expand-section box with explanation text, so we can find those cases and have a look. This is a method we have used to good effect in many different templates, for instance to find erroneous usage of parameters. It usually takes about two weeks until nearly all cases have arrived in such a category, since pages are only re-rendered when someone visits them.

(The template already had such code and a reporting category since we are looking for cases that use the deprecated "catanyway=" parameter.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

One week has passed, so most cases have probably arrived. Second week usually only gets a few more. Anyway, we now have more than enough cases to form an opinion, since there are now 521 cases in the category.

From the examples I see in the category I now agree with some of the suggestions above: When the explanation parameter is fed we should increase the box width to 300px. And we should remove the <br> tag between "with:" and the explanation text, so we use the 300px box more efficiently.

Possible extension: I have now made {{str ≥ len}} that can check the string length, so we can know exactly when to make the box larger. There already existed the {{str len}} template that can count up to 80, which kind of should be enough for us. But it is very inefficient and it gives an ugly error message for strings longer than 80, so we can't use that one. But {{str ≥ len}} would do the job perfectly.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The catanyway parameter

Resolved

 – Consensus to delete useless parameter.

I just noticed that the "catanyway=" parameter have never worked as intended. That is, it was added to the template code on 31 May 2008 and the following text was added to the /doc the same day and is still in the doc:

Use the parameter catanyway ("catanyway=") if using outside the article namespace and you want it to be placed in default categories despite being in the wrong namespace.

However, feeding "catanyway=" does nothing. Instead currently feeding "catanyway=anything" like for instance "catanyway=yes" does what is intended.

I see three ways of fixing this:

1: I can make it so "catanyway=" works as the doc says, that is make it so the template categorises pages even when not in main (article) space. But I find this slightly illogical since for me feeding an empty "catanyway=" parameter looks like "do not categorise".

2: We can change the doc so it says "catanyway=yes". And I can update the template code so "catanyway=no" works as one would expect. (Currently any text fed causes the template to categorise pages.)

3: We could simply remove the "catanyway" parameter. Do we really need it? (I think I prefer this choice.)

So, which should I do?

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• The parameter does not appear to be useful, and should probably be removed. Use of the template outside mainspace would be rare, and such usage (presumably mostly in sandboxes, etc) would almost always not be for instances where showing up in a maintenance category would be appropriate. Is the parameter used at all in the wild currently? I would suspect not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn: Thanks for agreeing. So I removed the "catanyway" parameter from the new small version of this message box that I just deployed. And you kind of asked: "Can we check if there are any 'catanyway=' cases out there?" And yes, we can check that! So I added such "error logging" to the code I just deployed. If there are any cases of "catanyway=" or "catanyway=yes" or similar they will show up in Category:Wikipedia expand-section box parameter needs fixing. It usually takes about two weeks for most cases to become visible when we add new categorising to a template. (Because page code isn't parsed before someone visits a page and thus causes it to re-render.) So about two weeks from now we will know how many "catanyway" uses there are out there.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This can go now I would say. Rich Farmbrough, 20:46 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Unhappy with new template design

Resolved

 – No consensus to change design again, after over 2.5 years.

I know a long discussion went on to create a new version of this template, but I'd like to formally complain about the new design. To me, it looks like something that was mistakenly added to a given article and it gives off a bad userbox-type vibe. While consensus might have been met here, once introduced, it is now seen by not just the group that came to consensus, but the entire WP community, most of whom had no say and was not informed of the upcoming design change (noting that the VP discussion was surprisingly short). This is the only template that looks like this, even though there are plenty others that only deal with sections of an article that have stayed at the original size. If this design has to stick, it should at least be centered on the page and I would prefer it is as wide as any other template (and re-sizable depending on how wide a user wants their browser). I would like something more like this, though I'd prefer the image to be centered with the text (didn't feel like researching the code to do that right now):

So naturally, I mean not to offend anybody that worked on the new one. You were all working in the best interest of the project. I just want to voice my concerns with the new design and make it clear that I don't think it currently does a good job and is not as respectable as its predecessor (or its current siblings, which are all the same size, save for this). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wadester16: discussion of a 'subtler' template kicked off not long after the (far smaller) Template:Sectstub was redirected here (and can thus reasonably be considered a response to that action), likewise without consultation of the wider template-using community. The more recent change was at least mooted first at the Village Pump before implementation. While you are welcome to advocate the restoration of the larger template, WP:CONSENSUS to date has been that it overwhelmed the very small (otherwise they wouldn't require this template) sections that it is used for. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I can deal with the vertical size change, but why not make it just as wide as the original? Having it the size/shape of a userbox and aligned to the left is pretty tacky and a poor graphic design IMO. But again, this is just my reaction to the template since it's been (unexpectedly in my world) changed. I wouldn't be surprised if others feel the same way, but may not know/care enough to search out this discussion. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"why not make it just as wide as the original?" Because it is its width that is its most excessive & 'unsubtle' dimension (your proposed alternative is almost all unused whitespace). In the discussion to date (and as far as I remember), you are the only person who has been advocating a full-width template. Decisions are made by those who can be bothered to turn up. Enough people turned up when this became this (via a redirect) to ask for a change. Even more people will need to turn up for there to be a consensus objecting to the latest change to turn back the clock. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove extra line break

Resolved

 – Removed as requested.

{{editprotected}} There's an extra line break in this template that adds a new line after it unnecessarily. To remove it, find the following code:

}}<includeonly>{{DMCA|Articles to be expanded|since|{{{date|}}}|All articles to be expanded}}
<!-- 

And replace it with:

}}<includeonly>{{DMCA|Articles to be expanded|since|{{{date|}}}|All articles to be expanded}}<!-- 

And you're done. Gary King (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Template width

Resolved

 – No consensus to change template; use talk page not template for long messages.

The template is not very wide. When many text is inserted as an attribute, the reading is uncomfortable.

I think this defect needs correction. Gryllida (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not supposed to add a long text to this template, that is what talkpages are for.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Icon problems

Resolved

 – Moot; transient error.

The icon on the side of this template seems to be broken. I don't exactly know how to fix this. Thanks, Sandcat01 (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I have discovered that the icon works if the size is set to something other than '20px'. I don't know why. Could somebody please change it to '21px' or '19px'? Sandcat01 (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The icon looks fine to me.... —fetch·comms 04:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And for me too ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Strange, now it works for me too! I swear it was not working when I checked it. Sandcat01 (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Template width again

Resolved

 – Parameters better documented, minor issues corrected; idea of making it larger rejected.

{{editprotected}} In my view, the type small should be used only when there is no other text, like "examples and additional citations". —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 18:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I see this issue is still unresolved, one way or another, since March 2009. If the general view is that the box is too narrow when there is extra text, then it seems the simplest way would be to use a normal ambox in these cases. However I think it would be worth letting this proposal sit for a few days to see if any other suggestions are forthcoming. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem needed. It it is wide enough. Garion96 (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Guy could give an example where he feels the width is insufficient?— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes: Ark of the Covenant#In the Bible. Now it stands:

It should be

—Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 11:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, earlier today I added a new parameter (default behavior remains unchanged) that allows overriding the small size, by passing the small parameter as in {{expand section|small=}}. This was to make it play nicely with other amboxes in the section; example here. I didn't document the feature on purpose, but if you deem that harmless, we can mention it in the docs, with an explicit warning against its unwarranted use. --Waldir ^talk 19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather complicated, but it works:

Thanks. —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 20:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We can further tweak the unnamed parameter's display, so that it doesn't add a break or make the text small if the long version is used. What do you guys think? --Waldir ^talk 22:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Against. First it should be larger because of other templates, now because there is more text in the template. I think this template should be the same size, small, in all cases. Regarding the extra text, that extra text should be on the talk page, not inside the template. Garion96 (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention: I also added a "talksection" parameter that allows linking to a specific section in the talk page. That would be useful for the case above, indeed, rather than expanding the template width. --Waldir ^talk 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Template width is narrow yet again. "small=" doesn't work. Also, all parameters should be added to the documentation. —Eekerz ^(t) 19:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to be working because the example above it working fine. Also, you can edit the documentation yourself, so please go ahead. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to see the template widened as well: see Christian_mysticism#Major_historical_movements--lots of blank space created by a box that expands vertically when it needs to expand horizontally.

• It already can be -- just set parameter small=no (default is small=yes) per above. I've added this change to Christian_mysticism#Major_historical_movements. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Groovy--thanks for the explanation and thanks for the change. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a try adding it to the documentation, but {{tlc}} (which is used to document template code) doesn't seem to like the "small=no" parameter for some reason. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Expand section vs More footnotes in the References section

FYI

 – Just a comment.

I noticed some misuse of the template. Some editors use it to indicate that the article needs (more) references by adding it to the References section. I added a sentence to the manual on that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And? There's probably not a major template on the system that isn't misused somewhere by someone. If you see it misused, replace it with one that is more appropriate. And feel free to clarify the documentation if you think that's necessary. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

interlang

Resolved

 – The interwiki links go on the /doc subpage.

{{editprotected}}

Please add the interlanguage link for French, and if possible also correct the protected version on Fr.wikipedia.org (it incorrectly points to {{expand}})

fr:Modèle:Section vide ou incomplète

76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Done French link added, but I don't have admin rights at fr.wiki, so you'll have to make a request there. Favonian (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Move to subpage of Expand

Resolved

 – Moot - {{Expand}} has been deprecated.

{{movereq|Template:Expand/Section}} Template:Expand section → Template:Expand/Section — I'd like to try to bring all of the expand templates together as parameters of Template:Expand. Rather than bundle all the templates into one, the parameters would call subpages of Expand, as the subpages for each option would be easier for more users to edit than a giant parameterized template. --Bsherr (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree per nom. Would then be consistent with many other similar templates, for example most of the other templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Mhiji (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. OK, I don't really have an opinion - it seemed a good way to go if the templates are being merged, but not if there are objections to that.--Kotniski (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only would this would make {{Expand section}} less visible to editors who are looking for cleanup templates, it would make it different from all of our other cleanup templates. Within the template namespace we generally only use "subpages" of templates for subtemplates which are "functions" used by the parent template itself. This is the wrong venue for a template merger discussion. If you think several templates should be merged into {{Expand}}, the place to suggest that would be Template talk:Expand, not a page move discussion. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Tothwolf, you might have misunderstood, or I might not have been clear. My intention is to make {{Expand section}} operate as {{Expand|section}}. It would be a function of the parent template itself. Template:Expand section would then retransclude {{Expand|section}}, like a redirect. Template:Cleanup works this way, but without the subpage. Before the move is completed, I'll add that functionality to Template:Expand, of course. I hope that addresses your concerns. Of course, moving Template:Expand section to a subpage wouldn't preclude these changes to Expand; I'd just be transclusing here instead. --Bsherr (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No, I understood, I was trying to explain the normal way to go about doing what you were proposing. I would suggest adding the functionality to the sandbox and propose the merger on the talk page. You also wouldn't want to transclude {{Expand section}} from {{Expand}}, you would merge its functionality into {{Expand}} and then replace the existing code in {{Expand section}} with {{Expand|section}}. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Unlike Cleanup, the message and formatting of Expand section is quite different. Because it would be parsed, it won't display on the template page. Creating a subpage and then transcluding it into the parent would allow users to simply edit the subpage to make changes to the template with the "section" parameter. The "show preview" button would be responsive to the changes, and, because the code will be segregated, it will be easier to edit, particularly for less experienced users. But if this move request fails, the next closest solution is to transclude at this template page name, which Expand already does. {{Expand|section}} already transcludes this template page. --Bsherr (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• I don't have a strong opinion about this either way, but from my limited knowledge Tothwolf is right. I only know of Template:cite doi, which uses sub-pages for bot-filled copies of the template, which save editors from typing all the details. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose {{expand}} was nominated for deletion. There is no need to move to a subpage of what may be deleted. 65.95.14.34 (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It won't be deleted, but since this proposal doesn't seem to have gained support despite being open for ages, I'm being bold and taking it off the RM backlog. Feel free to reopen if you think it's still got legs.--Kotniski (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Once the TFD disruption dies down we can discuss it on Template talk:Expand and look at doing a full merger later. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see what useful purpose is being accomplished with this move. Contrary to what Mhiji says, In Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup all templates seem to be in a flat structure, for example {{Cleanup}}, {{Cleanup-images}} and {{Cleanup-gallery}}. They all seem to work perfectly well. If you merge a template into other then you just make it into a redirect. I suggest giving examples of how this structure would be more useful than the current flat structure used by every other maintenance template. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Expand is being deleted (apparently) the discussion is somewhat moot, however I would support carefully thought out integration of the clean up templates types versus objects : So that, perhaps, {{foo|bar}} where bar= [article|section|table]image|graph|paragraph...] would always work. Rich Farmbrough, 13:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Category:Wikipedia expand-section box with explanation text

FYI

 – A (now-expired) CfD notice.

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_8#Category:Wikipedia_expand-section_box_with_explanation_text. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fix alt text

Resolved

 – "[Icon]" alt text added.

Please replace

| image = [[Image:Wiki letter w cropped.svg|20px]]

with

| image = [[Image:Wiki letter w cropped.svg|20px|alt=|link=]]

This is a purely decorative image, and should have empty alt/link fields per WP:ALT. Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done File:Wiki letter w cropped.svg is under a license that requires attribution, and so the link may not be removed. If you can find (and get consensus for) a public domain replacement (or some other license that doesn't require attribution), feel free to make a new request. Anomie⚔ 02:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine then let's add |alt=. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For images that link to their image description page ... the alt text cannot be blank nor should the alt parameter be absent. This sentence is from the page you quoted above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if it MUST not be entirely hidden, it still needs real alt text, then, so it is clear that it is just decorative, e.g. alt="[icon]". This is obvious from both the wording of the quoted passage and from basic common sense (at least if you understand WP:ACCESSibility and usability issues), so screen reader and text-mode browser users aren't left trying to figure out what the image is and why it is there (the fact that it is linked is a strong indication that it's a non-trivial image. Having no alt, as is the case now, is as much of violation of the quoted instructions as adding a blank alt= would be. Another alternative would be simply replacing the image with something without such unhelpful restrictions. Using a random Wikipedia mini-symbol isn't all that intuitive anyway. Given how much people bicker and argue on this talk page, for the time being just fix the alt text, and then feel free to debate what little picture to eventually use instead. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, whatever. Anomie⚔ 01:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor code cleanup

Resolved

 – Minor fixes applied.

Please replace the current template with Template:Expand section/sandbox (or, more precisely, with the content of this version see below, in case someone else monkeyed with it. :-) It simply fixes some XML sloppiness (the parser itself will compensate, but no reason to force it to do so, and enshrining sloppy code in protected templates simply encourages the writing of more, and worse, sloppy code). Oh, and it removes some pointless whitespace (code only, not in the rendered output; basically, we don't need to do "[space character]<br />[space character]"; that's pointless). Anyway, here's the diff. If the above editprotected, to put in required alt text, is done first, then that change needs to be incorporated. Actually, I've done so, with this diff. So the code to use is now this version. If people want to kvetch and hair-pull and tooth-gnash about the alt fix, just use the diff I first linked to instead of this one. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Done after fixing the spacing errors you had in there. Anomie⚔ 01:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't an error; the line break was pretty clearly intentional as a major aid to readability. I'll propose it separately, though.