Template talk:Wikify/Archive 1

Request for bold emphasis
Please make "wikified" appear in bold. The template messages (cleanup) page has been alphabetically sorted and bolding the key term in all templates will facilitate consistency and (imho) enhance visual appeal. Obey 08:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. David Björklund 23:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I second that too. Bold wikified !! For great justice. ;) AnOddName 19:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Centering
Does this need to be centered? It is the only frequently used message like this that is centered the same way. cohesion [[User_talk:Cohesion|&#9742;]] 04:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to agree, as it does seem rather off. I would also argue that the text background should be the same blue color surrounding it, but that is relatively unimportant.  Mike5904 01:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Small text
I put the small text back so that it would not go onto multiple lines. If anybody can think of a better way to keep it on one line, please suggest it here- or better yet- go ahead and change it yourself :). -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|&#9997;]] 00:19, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * On one line?! It wraps after "out" on my screen with the small font, and after "the" with the normal one. I think it's futile to attempt to avoid wrapping when it all depends on each viewer's resolution, font and theme. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I can barely read it. It doesn't matter if it extends more than one line, as with the case of  and others. [[User:tomf688|tomf688]] 01:57, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Embedded link
The current link (which is to to the basic formatting codes) isn't much use to most editors faced with 'wikify' &mdash; they don't want to know how to achieve the desired formatting, but what formatting they should apply (subject bolded and in the first sentence, etc.). I've thus replaced that link with Guide to layout. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Auto-tagging
Is there a way articles in the main namespace with no links could automatically be assigned this tag? Or has that already been done? &mdash;M ICLER ( &#1052;&#1099;&#1082;&#1083;&#1088; ) 00:36, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Cache
Hey Netoholic, sorry about that, I usually don't have caching problems here... Adam Bishop 21:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. It was an unintended side-effect.  The technical material on MediaWiki I read said this should be painless, or I would have warned in the initial edit summary. -- Netoholic @ 00:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed a penis picture...
Somebody has been vandalizing this template. When I viewed any page that had a wikify template, the first thing I saw was a big penis. Maybe the Encyclopedia Britannica folks have been here?


 * Maybe not. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 13:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I have protected this, much like Current for the vandalism and for the amount of articles it appears on, plus there's nothing to add to it really. Redwolf24 02:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Added "Please remove this template after wikifying."
I've been doing some wikifying at Category:Articles that need to be wikified, and half the time I go to an article, it has been wikified but the template remains. Hopefully an extra reminder will get people to remove it. &mdash; siro &chi;  o  02:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, that's pretty pointless. If people don't know what it means to complete wikifying an article, the extra warning won't help them either, because how will they know that they're done? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Joy. It's easy to look at an article, see unlinked text or HTML tags, and partially wikify, but (to me) judging an article fully wikified by removing the tag is a matter of opinion and experience. Perhaps (in more visible articles) the template can ask wikifiers to take a poll on the article's Talk Page to ensure consensus before removing the tag. --AnOddName 04:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for changing the template
It would seem to me that the template should be changed to one of the following (or similar) as right now it seems rather botched. Note that these are only formatting alterations and do not affect the content of the template.

The first is most similar to the current format, except with the table code removed that seems to be messing up the background:  This article needs to be wikified. Please format this article according to the guidelines laid out at Guide to layout. Please remove this template after wikifying.

A little padding could be added to make the box more substantial:

 This article needs to be wikified. Please format this article according to the guidelines laid out at Guide to layout. Please remove this template after wikifying.

The image (currently commented out) could also be used in a manner consistent with other templates:



Does anyone have any thoughts on this idea? Mike5904 01:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently looking at the history might be a little helpful, as it was essentially identical to my first suggestion before. Is there any particular reason why it was changed from that?  It appears as if that is very consistent with similar templates. Mike5904 02:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the padding: I don't have a particularly strong opinion, but I prefer the version without the padding. As for the graphic: I am strongly opposed to adding that graphic or any graphic to this template. Blank Verse 06:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears someone has changed it back to the old version, which I found perfectly suitable. -Mike5904 16:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why I reverted back to the old style.
I reverted the changes to set the background-color as white. Personally I like the old style and don't understand why to change it. Also, I think that such changes should be discussed here first. - David Björklund (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Category
I just changed the include/noinclude to not put articles this template is on into a category of templates, just in the the cleanup category. xaosflux Talk  / CVU  17:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection
The template is now semiprotected after some vandalism. David | Talk 00:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed semiprotection as I hope the vandalism spree has passed. David | Talk 11:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Slightly stronger wording about removal
This template gets improperly removed from articles all the time, invariably on new articles by the person who created the article, without any attempt at Wikifying actually occuring. This is probably just an innocent mistake most of the time. Any thoughts on making the wording slightly stronger, something along the lines of "Please remove this template only after properly adding formatting to the article". --W.marsh 18:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm worried about doing so because people are often afraid to remove the tag after wikifying, already. Sometimes other users even get upset with them for doing so legitimately. It clearly says that the article should be wikified before removing the tag and (in my experience) when these users are confronted they usually don't know what "wikify" means. Therefore, I think that the problem for such users is that they don't read the instructions on the tag carefully and they don't read the instructions on the pages that the tag links to at all. I think changing the tag is more likely to scare cautious contributors than to get new users to wikify the article before removing the tag. -- Kjkolb 17:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken... though that's why I say "formatting" instead of "wikifying" - forcing a wacky neologism on people is indeed a recipe for confusion. And you're right, many people simply are not going to click to a new page and read a bunch of guidelines.  But then again, it would be nice if there was some non-biting way to get them to not remove the tag unless they make some changes.  --W.marsh 18:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wikify-date
Please use Template:Wikify-date instead of this one. Use it by adding  which is the same as  , this will sort the articles into per-month categories. thanks Martin 21:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh can't we get a bot to do the tedius work, as happens with tags? --W.marsh 21:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Pearle is now doing this work, so feel free to use the wikify tags you know and love, if it makes you happy. Human attention can probably be better spent on other worries. -- Beland 05:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this template be declared deprecated in favor of Template:Wikify-date? Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 21:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Since it's converted over by bot automatically, it's fine to keep using the wikify template itself. Template:Cleanup, for example, isn't declared deprecated, AFAIK. I don't think a change is needed. --W.marsh 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That'll do for an answer, alright. Thank you! Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 21:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Now things are reversed, please use Wikify. Rich Farmbrough, 12:33 10 January 2007 (GMT).

Change?
So has the Wikify-date tag been depreciated? ANy discussion on that? Also has pearle been modified to use this one instead??? Finally I copied a current discussion from the wikify-date talk page. Ant comments on this? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 13:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Good lord! The recent template changes are a grammatical mess:

''This May 2006 needs to be wikified. Please format this article according to the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Remove this template after wikifying. Please consider using a more date specific tag, rather than this one.''

Shouldn't this read:

''This May 2006 article needs to be wikified. Please format this article according to the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Remove this template after wikifying. Please consider using a more date specific tag, rather than this one. ''

--Brad101 18:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes its a mess, Bluemoose appears tyo have done all this chnge without any for of consultaion - for now I am replacing this trag with the contents of Wikify-date as that actually makes sense - pending an explanation / discussion of the change. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 19:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with that, Brad101 is that if the optional date thing is not included it will read This article or section article needs to be wikified. (or would have before Errant changed it to wikify-date. Can we put it back to the way it was until we chan have a disscusion and make something up that works? Flying Canuck 19:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I changed it to a setup that was agreed to before (seeing as this is now to replace Wikify-date) and to remove the bad grammar. The template appears on loads of pages so its got to look right :-P. Feel free to Rv to the 'nonsense' version if you like I wont revert but consider that this has been the accepted dated version of the tag for a while :D Anyway, the worry you noted isnt a problem. we can insert the another if parameter to fix that (to either display the word article or not :D Anyway I would be in favour of using the wikify-date layout with the modifications discussed below! I am also not sure about the whole template change, especially as it hasnt been discussed--Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 19:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have requested that Template:wikify-date be un-protected. I'm fine with what you did as a temporary solution. If we can find a way to code in an optional date parameter that would be great. It's above my skill level though.Flying Canuck 19:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you make it so it only shows the small date line at the bottom if a date is added? That would fix the problem.Flying Canuck 19:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

<- Done, the appears on the template still but dont worry when it is transcluded it will disappear - and if it exists the text will pop back :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 19:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Actually It didnt do that as expected - but now ive included in the IF, on my original preview of the change it didnt seem to work with the but now it does - wierd!! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 20:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The old wikify-date also put the article into a category based on the date. Can we get this one to do that to? Flying Canuck 20:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: category, it does, that was already changed by Bluemoose. But the cat is only used if a date is set. I checked a few articles that have been dated and it does work :D I concurr with Brad that the below discussed changes need considering. I think the text needs changing too --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good for now but I would still like to make the changes I was talking about below here. --Brad101 20:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Instructions
Instead of having the link to wikify pointing towards the glossary, it might be more informative if people were sent to WP:WIKIFY or WP:WWF as there are always people asking what the tag means. --Brad101 05:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur, an alternative would be to leave that link and to change the MOS links to the wikify project page. Something like:

Please wikify (format) this article or section as suggested in the Wikiproject guidelines and Manual of style.


 * That makses the guidlines / advice more obvious and still provides access to the definition!! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 18:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the confusion is (appart from the need to update the description). The changes I made mean that now all the wikify templates can accept a date parameter, and if no parameter was entered then the default category is used. This makes no difference to how pearle bot functions, as the old wikify-date template can still be used as it was before. Martin 21:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have further clarified the instructions. Overall the situation now is much more simple, we now only have one template which can accept the data parameter or not, and all the other templates can happiliy redirect here. This previously was a big confusion to unfamiliar users (believe me, me and Bluebot had to sort the mess out frequently). Martin 21:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ok thats fine, we just wondered as you didnt seem to discuss this before the changes. I personally think its a good change but others might diagree. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making that change. I was just confused because there was some problems, I'm glad it works now.Flying Canuck 22:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Date
I think the entire wikify template should be substed, like because then the date could more easily be included in the template (that is, wikify would include a substed date.) The only problem is the code would be inserted into the page. Or maybe just add the substed dates to the template? Makes it a lot easier. Bellito, master of all things Mac-related 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, bad idea. Causes more problems than it solves. Can't re-org categories. Can't ID the tag as easily. Categories can get moved outside the tag. Rich Farmbrough, 12:35 10 January 2007 (GMT).

editprotected

These tags need to accept Date with a capital D for the date. Capitalization is not a lost art, but it will become so if there is further neglect of it by programmers who write templates. It is just habit for me and others to use an initial capital letter, since we do a lot of writing. Sloppily written templates than don't have good input checking (one of the first rules every programmer is expected to learn) just makes more work all round when a person easily and naturally puts an initial letter. Hu 03:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not done; see my comments on Template talk:Notability. --ais523 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note User:SmackBot will fix this for you :- the template will get a majuscule an the argument a minuscule. Rich Farmbrough, 09:57 1 October 2007 (GMT).

Proposed Edit


Which looks like: 

-- PatrickFisher 11:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No icon on the wikify template, please. That would ugly up hundreds of pages. Ashi b aka tock 18:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, minus the icon. ZsinjTalk 01:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for interwiki link
I suggest adding an interwiki link to the corresponding template on the Swedish Wikipedia: sv:Mall:Ickewiki --Bensin 18:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. I managed. --Bensin 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

aother request for interwiki link
la:Formula:Vicificanda --Ioshus (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, — xaosflux  Talk  00:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Date parameter
Can the following line be added to display the date parameter? It seems that displaying the date is standard in other cleanup templates. --Muchness 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Did my best to make it match the format used in cleanup. Luna Santin 08:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to change that if statement to look for either the first parameter (), or to look for the date= parameter? I notice that several other similar templates (such as Template:Notability, Template:Unsourced, etc.) require the date= parameter. It would be nice if we could standardize this notation, while also keeping "backwards compatability" with the way it works now. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 15:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Rich Farmbrough, 09:41 12 April 2007 (GMT).

Section
Per this edit the mentioning of section is removed. Can it be changed again to "This article or section" etc. Garion96 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. (I changed it to "This article (or section) ...") Proto ::  ►  15:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page
This is an editorial template. Talk pages are specifically designed for editorial comments and discussions about article development. The template does not inform the reader of an article of any information they need to know, unlike for example unreferenced which warns a reader that the information in the article may not be accurate. Therefore I think it should go on the talk page not the article page --Philip Baird Shearer 12:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally I agree with that, but in this case it also is a statement to the original editor and anyone else who wants to help fixing the article. Like uncat for categories. In which case it will be missed by those people when it's on the talk page. Garion96 (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It will only be a statment to the original editors if the orginal editors are watching the page, in which case they will also be notified if it is placed on the talk page. And usually if one wants to help fix an article, it is a good idea to look at the talk page before starting to fix it! --Philip Baird Shearer 22:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC) BTW I think uncat should be placed on the talk page for the same reason --Philip Baird Shearer 23:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Old Image
editprotected

I made an image that represents wikifying so people who don't know what the word mean can by the image. the source would be changed to:  preview:   Menasim ( discuss  ) 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The image should be probably be changed to the SVG format first. Other than that I rather like the idea. --ais523 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * uploaded SVG version  Menasim ( discuss  ) 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

✅ and if I do say so myself, it looks pretty good. Cbrown1023</b> <b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b> 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The new version is too tall, the blue on the left is visually distracting, and overall the box is too large and visually distracting. Please use the previous version, thanks.  Badagnani 04:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Badagnani, please use the previous version. Jeepday 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is silly, there is no reason to use an image for this. Please replace the image with the following text:

Wiki&lt;/nowiki>


 * Result:
 * Wiki
 * --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Removed
User:AzaToth came by and modified the image and kindly asked that we contact him if we didn't like it. I went to his talk page pointed out we didn't like the image period and that no one was responding to comments here on the talk page. User:AzaToth kindly reverted back to the no image version of 22:28, 4 March 2007. Please note that this page has a history of attempts to add an image that leads to no image on the template. Jeepday 14:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

weird thing
For some reason when I come to this page tonight it is stuck showing the version from 10:35, 12 February 2007 ( I went and looked at history to figure it out) I have refreshed and that did not fix it so now I am hoping adding this comment will some how fix it. Jeepday 02:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)