Template talk:Wikify/Archive 2

Request to bypass redirects
editprotected

Change

to

Thanks, Iamunknown 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Note that it may take some time for existing uses of the template to update. --ais523 11:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Iamunknown 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A change to the usage instructions
editprotected

There is a new way of placing a properly dated wikify tag:
 * wikify

Please place this information in the template discription. Od Mishehu 08:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can make this change yourself; edit Template:Wikify/doc. --ais523 13:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wish: a replacement request and talk link
editprotected

Talk link may be needed, especially if it contains HTML tags who are invisible for the ordinary reader. The Template:Wikify is described to have four distinctive uses, as per Template_messages/Cleanup,


 * If the article needs reformatting to be more readable
 * If the article needs HTML changed into wikitext
 * If the article needs text markup for mathematical formulae per WP:MATH
 * If important words need to be linked to appropriate Wikipedia articles

so it should most oftenly need to be replaced by a more specific template. 

Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 13:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I Deactivated the edit protect template, Rursus has not looked for consensus before requesting this change to this and many other templates see Template_talk:Unreferenced. Jeepday (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't know the rules, so OK. I'll try to get a consensus first. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly as we are talking about here Category talk:Templates needing talk links and other improvements. Jeepday (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Line break for tagging date
Can someone please restore the line break for the tagging date – something to this effect:

From:

To:

Cheers. – Liveste 08:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup syntax
editprotected Can we get this fixed? MrZaius talk  03:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A: Don't need the parentheses around "section".
 * B: The template doesn't currently respond to |article, |section flags. ie just returns the same thing as wikify with no args.
 * Basically, replace

article (or section)
 * with


 * I assume. Sounds fine. Grace notes T § 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. (I independently came to the same coding as Gracenotes when I saw the request, and it's used on many other templates.) Please update the documentation accordingly; when using the parameter, it may also be worth checking that it doesn't confuse the automatic wikify-dating bots. --ais523 16:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it did, but it is now fixed. Incidentally in the mists of time was the date parameter, until we transitioned to a standards date= fr all the cleanup templates with that functionality. The transition was completed on the 6 May, but User:SmackBot will still correct the old style syntax where it occurs (assuming this fix hasn't broken it... hmm). Rich Farmbrough, 09:51 1 October 2007 (GMT).

Statement out of place.
The sentence:

"Note that if the date is left out a BOT will add it."

Should be under the prior bullet and not between the tag example and "at the top of the article."

I would have provided the code but the view source tab doesn't show this code. Probably my ignorance.

Still, it needs to be fixed and I can't fix it.

Softtest123 15:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 20:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is not the change I asked for. The "Note" is still under the wrong bullet.Softtest123 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can change the documentation at Template:Wikify/doc - that page is not protected. --- RockMFR 22:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image
There's a place to the left of the template for an image, yet none is placed there. Can an image be added, or the text be moved to fill in the blank? =David ( talk )( contribs ) 21:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Wikitext.svg|50px]] This image is used in the new template. Technical difficulties with the Wikipedia servers meant that some users may not have been able to see it initially. The image has been used in this template before, but it was subsequently rejected. I supposed it was chosen for the new template for want of a better image. I might see if I can find another one and propose a change here, but finding one that symbolises wikilinking, reformatting, tagging and categorising may be difficult. Cheers. – Liveste 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add this image Image:Ambox wikify.svg following discussions at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes to standardize template images. -- penubag  (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and made the requested change at POV, but I know the subject of images on this particular template has been brought up, before, so am inclined to wait at least a bit to see if any further input comes about. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally have trouble reading the text of this image. What's the motivation for the change? --- RockMFR 03:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, I find it to be too little contrast between the yellow background and white text (I am colorblind, which might be part of it). Though I like the standardized image styles, would it be possible to get a different color for the   text? --CapitalR (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the w conveys enough information. What's w mean? George W. Bush? Do we have to make a link to the white house? The brackets indicate a link, but not that the article needs to be wikified. I would leave it as [[wiki . 199.125.109.99 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ seems not to have consensus at this time. Happy‑melon 17:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bringing "Wikify" template into alignment WP:V and glossary definition of "wikify"
Would you-all consider fairly significant changes to the "Wikify" template, to clarify its intent and make its content more consistent with WP:V and the glossary definition of wikify?

Please, before you read, remove your "experienced editor" hat and consider the following proposal from the perspective of new editors ... because I think part of the dilemma is that experienced editors are so familiar with the intent behind the words that they don't realize that the only guide new editors have is the words themselves.

Bear with me as I try to describe how the dots don't connect:

WP:V states, and many talk page discussions endorse, "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources".

In contrast, the "Wikify" template's current text is, "This article or section needs to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this article with relevant internal links."

The template's text has led at least one editor to remove an external link and replace it with a link to a Wikipedia article. The editor was apparently taking the template's text at face value: This article needs work, specifically with regard to Wikipedia's "quality standard" which is stated to be "internal links". Any editor who isn't familiar with WP:V, but reads the template's text, would reasonably interpret that internal links are of higher quality than external (and infer that internal should replace external). I'm not agreeing; I'm just trying to point out that a fairly experienced editor's actions reflect a reasonable interpretation of the template's text.

So, please consider the following revisions to the template. These revisions build on the above considerations, as well as others that are presented below.

Current:

Proposed:

In addition to the changes that are visible in the text, there are some behind the scenes:


 * Changed the link behind "wikified" from Category:Articles that need to be wikified to the definition, wikified. If the statement is, "this article needs to be wikified," readers need to know what wikified means; their immediate need is not a list of other articles.
 * "Wikify" is defined as "To format using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and add internal links to material, incorporating it into the whole of Wikipedia". Neither of these -- markup nor creation of internal links -- is covered in the Manual of Style, so I replaced that link (which is located behind "quality standards") with the reference in the second sentence to wiki markup. The other half -- "Internal links" -- is already present so unchanged.
 * Removed additional links to Category:Articles that need to be wikified that are present in the markup but not rendered onscreen. If their function is to trigger placement on the "articles" page, they should be re-added, but if they're just there because of the link in the text I think they, like the text link, should be removed from the template.

Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style does cover wikilinks and markup. =)  And the presence of the category in the template is not a link but an inclusion, so that the pages on which this template is placed are entered into the (hidden) category.  Powers T 10:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Powers, I stand corrected, sort of :-). MoS does mention wikilinks and markup, but it doesn't say how to do them, and it has so much other stuff that's not wikifying sensu stricto that linking to it dilutes/overwhelms/distracts. In the context of a flag that's urging readers to do something, I think telling them exactly what to do, and how, serves Wikipedia's interests better than the current state of the template.


 * The goal of my suggestions is to shift the template from where it is -- understandable to, but not needed by, experienced editors who instantly read between the lines -- to something that's more helpful to less experienced participants who are going to read it at face value and act based on what it actually says.


 * Is your second sentence saying that everything after the visible text is there to get the page onto the list of pages that need wikifying? If so, thanks for the clarification. If not, sorry for misunderstanding -- not quite ready for the big words.


 * Would appreciate your thoughts on the rest of the edits (with apologies for being an upstart making so many of them).


 * BTW, thanks for directing me to this page. :-) Thirdbeach (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, a possible link that'd be better than the glossary and the MOS is to WikiProject Wikify, which is the only place I've found with actual instructions for wikification. Perhaps a new Wikification (currently a redirect to the glossary) page would be helpful, splitting out and elaborating on the WikiProject instructions.
 * I don't fully understand the code of the template myself, but it's all there for a reason. I wouldn't touch anything between the ending tag and the opening tag.  Powers T 14:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool -- the link to WikiProject Wikify looks better than wikify in terms of giving instructions. It would be nice to expand the glossary entry wikify to include either more of the components of wikification, or a link to the WikiProject. Thanks for the great link. Thirdbeach (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, the revised proposal, incorporating LtPowers' suggestions, is:


 * Does that work? Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi admins, does a conversation with only two participants, who both agree, satisfy "consensus"? If so, would you make the changes in the last version above? Thanks. Thirdbeach (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ at this time. This template is used on thousands of pages across Wikipedia, and was agreed on by consensus elsewhere. I suggest opening a request for comment and encourage outside opinions. If it was a minor change, then fine, but this is a complete revamp. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)  19:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't count me as agreeing to the change. =)  I'm actually neutral on it.  Powers T 23:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Peter, will do. Apologies, LtPowers, for misinterpreting your silence. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Bring Wikify template into better alignment with WP:V
Current template:

Proposed:

Overall, the proposed changes focus on tightening up the language and links in the template, so it's more useful to newcomers (experienced editors don't need it anyway).

Specific changes and the reasons behind them:

1. Change the link behind "wikify" to instructions on how to wikify. Current link, to "articles that need to be wikified", is not useful in wikifying this article which is, after all, what the template is asking readers to wikify.

2. Remove the link to Manual of Style. The principle is simplification and focus. Wikipedia explicitly urges new users to dive in and start editing, so it's in Wikipedia's best interests to give them bite-sized information that allows them to do so constructively. If we ask them to do a focused task and then dump them into the MoS, it's like asking them if they want a drink and pointing a fire hose at 'em.

3. In small-font sentence, add "(but don't remove links to external sources)" because the current template implies that internal links are Wikipedia's quality standard. The current language can be, and has been, construed to mean that wherever possible editors should replace external links with links to other Wikipedia articles. That, reading WP:V and its talk page, runs afoul of Wikipedia's policy of verifiability.

4. In small-font sentence, add "adding" for the same reasons as #4. Removing external links weakens Wikipedia's robustness and credibility, but adding internal links strengthens the Wikipedia web.

In your comments, bear in mind that this is actually several small proposals. Please specify (by number, for the sake of clarity) which you're responding to.

Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support 1 and 4; both make sense to me. Oppose 3; I don't think it's necessary to state this, especially if the template is clarified to specify that links should be added rather than removed. No opinion on 2; the MOS link isn't immediately necessary, but I'm not convinced it's doing much harm either. Terraxos (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Some interesting ideas. I'll post a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify so that you can get more input from other editors who are active in the wikification drive. Regarding the first sentence, the current wording is consistent with most of the other cleanup templates (see Template messages/Cleanup). Expand is an exception, but the wording was shortened long before the cleanup templates became standardised. Personally, I have a thing against templates pleading for help so directly. It somewhat detracts from the "professional" tone that Wikipedia aspires to. What the current wording lacks in brevity, it makes up for in polite, informative detachment. Regarding the numbered proposals:
 * Completely agree. I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. It's actually a remnant from when the category itself was the focal point of the wikification drive. Perhaps a good link would be WikiProject Wikify, or else just WikiProject Wikify.
 * I don't mind either way about the link, or even about deleting that part of the sentence. Newer editors could just follow the link to the wikification instructions, which has links to formatting guides. But then it is used on a lot of the other cleanup templates, so this requires wider consensus (not necessarily on the other templates).
 * Telling editors to not remove links to external sources can, in some cases, contradict WP:LINKS, which, in its capacity as a guideline, advises editors to remove superfluous external links from articles (see also WP:WPEL). The bracketed information may discourage newer editors from removing inappropriate external links in any article they encounter. Also, since Wikify is a dated template, it displays the tagging date in brackets at the end of the small-font sentence. Having two consecutive bracket pairs looks ungainly, in my opinion. (See #4 below for an alternative.)
 * Sounds good. Regarding the third proposal, perhaps just saying "(Please) help improve this article by adding relevant internal links" would be sufficient to avoid confusion. I can't imagine too many editors – even new ones – interpreting the phrase " adding relevant internal links" as meaning "please feel compelled to replace external links with internal ones"; I doubt such a misinterpretation would be common enough to warrant change.
 * Overall, I pretty much agree with Terraxos on all counts: support #1 and #4, oppose #3 and neutral on #2. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto: Support #1 and #4, Oppose #3, Neutral on #2. JubalHarshaw (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I support the change in wording to bring clarity when the wikify template should be used. Specifically, I support items 1, 2, and 4. I oppose 3 as the removal of external links would have been an aspect of misunderstanding from the current wording. The proposed wording makes it clearer adding item 3 to the template actually is distracting. -- Whpq (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I remain neutral on these proposals, except point 3, which I oppose per the above comments. Powers T 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the suggested wording overall looks a lot cleaner, I very much approve of the change. However, I agree with the above that the text about not removing external links is unnecessary and potentially more misleading than it is now; particularly given that the previous phrase has now been rewritten to include the word "add". In summary, I support 1, 2 and 4, and oppose 3. ~ mazca  t 14:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Support all four elements of the change. #3 is iffy, but if you say people are really getting confused about this, I'll believe you. As for #2, I would note that we might want to throw in an explicit link to the MoS in the smaller text. "For help with matters of style, consult the Manual of Style" - something like that. Mr. IP (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd support 1,2 and 4 but not sure about 3, because there clearly are situations, especially on pages which are a in a bit of a mess, when removing external links is a good thing. If the problem is that they have not been formatted properly as references, then those articles need to have a tag about reference formatting added to them as well as a wikify tag. Sometimes there are external links that need to be removed (I seem to recall a template asking for link-removal too). It would be harmful if this tag seemed to potentially contradict another tag. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 12:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So, it looks like we do have a pretty strong consensus for the new version, with the exception of the phrase about external links.

So, does anyone have any objections to this as a final draft? It is identical to the original proposal, minus that phrase. If not, I think it's time to ask a friendly admin to change the template! ~ mazca  t 22:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mazca! Glad to see somebody else perceives a consensus. I'm in favor of calling in the admin. Thirdbeach (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

editprotected There seems to be consensus to change this template to the following:

If an admin could update the template then that would be great. Thanks in advance. ~ mazca  t 13:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. I'm guessing number 2 was done via silent consensus (i.e. no one opposed).  Cheers.  --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. There had only been opposition to proposal 3, with proposals 1,2,and 4 being generally supported. Without proposal 3 in the final version nobody seemed to have a problem, and nobody's said anything negative in four days. ;) Thanks for the edit. ~ mazca  t 16:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Automated link suggestions
There is a semi-intelligent link suggesting tool. For example, Template:Deadend contains the following:
 * For some link suggestions, you can try the Can We Link It tool.

Would that be a useful addition to this template? -- Beland (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

...by adding relevant internal links
That formulation should be adjusted to reflect the utter need of many articles to be rid of irrelevant internal links. Everyme 03:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many things that need to be addressed when wikifying articles, but for the sake of brevity we don't mention all of them in the tag. The current wording reflects the problem most commonly encountered in articles with this tag, and it already implies that any internal links should be "relevant". In any case, the wikify link in the first sentence can give more detailed information on wikifying articles; quite often a reader will have to click on this link to find out what the exact problem is in the first place (i.e., what "wikify" means). So while the wikification drive does involve removing irrelevant wikilinks from articles, I don't think it's necessary to mention it more explicitly in the tag. I've also removed the editprotected tag from this section until an overall supportive consensus is reached. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 07:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't argue to include a notice that sometimes, wikilinks should be reduced. But at the very least, the template shouldn't singlemindedly encourage the addition of wikilinks no matter what. The impression inexperienced users currently get is that the more wikilinks, the better, which is clearly wrong. Imho, that bit should be removed. If you have arguments why it should be kept like this, please state them. Everyme 10:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response, and thanks for clarifying what you meant. The current wording reflects the most common problem we see with articles that have this tag, which is basically that these articles contain very few wikilinks or none at all. (Actually, formatting is another problem that appears frequently, and something about this probably should be mentioned in the tag as well; see below.) In my experience with the wikification drive, once article becomes wikified, very rarely will it contain too many links. In fact, I often see more "wikified" articles that still contain too few links. For this reason I don't think the part about adding relevant internal links should be removed (I hope I'm not misunderstanding you again). That said, we could simply add something to the current wording that tells editors not to go overboard with adding links – e.g., "... adding a few relevant internal links". But I'm concerned that something like this will result in editors adding too few wikilinks to articles, potentially requiring them to be "re-wikified". Thoughts? – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I also came here to query the wording of the template. I added it to an article that instead of sections had a series of bolded statements; what I meant by it was it ought to be converted to sections and subsections, but the template made it look like I was requesting more internal links. I strongly suggest the wording be altered to "Help improve this article by structuring it in accordance with the Manual of Style" or similar. the skomorokh 21:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite true. Emphasising wikilinks alone is probably not enough considering the range of problems this template covers. I've tried to address both issues in the section below. I'll post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify to try to get a greater consensus before requesting a modification of the template. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems like it could be easily remedied by educating those adding links on proper linking procedures. --Aarktica (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Layout
Extending from the discussion above, I believe that the two most frequent problems seen in articles that have this tag – insufficient wikilinks and bad formatting – should both be mentioned in the tag itself. The tag currently asks editors to add relevant internal links, but perhaps we should also ask them to "improve the article's layout". Perhaps something along the lines of "Help improve this article by adding (a few?) relevant internal links and improving the article's layout". Thoughts? – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox
I've started a sandbox for this page in which to experiment with improvements, rather than continually pasting template code into this page. I've put up a new version in there with some significant changes to layout; I'd appreciate feedback. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend sticking to "needs wikification" rather than "may need"; the former is straightforward whereas the latter is ambiguous and suggests the tagger is incompetent. On a related point, I support your removing "article or section" in favour of the default "article"; wherever a section needs wikifying, it is true to say the article does, so nothing lost there. Again, the template message should avoid commitment to the claim that the article needs any specific form of wikifying; it is counterproductive and confusing to readers to say an article that has plenty of bluelinks but terrible quote formatting will be helped by "adding more internal links that are relevant to the context". Most wikification I do involves introducing ref tags, infoboxes and section headings, for example. Adding a link to WP:LAYOUT was a good idea. Hope this helps. Skomorokh  12:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of "may" is in line with most other cleanup templates; it allows for the possibility that the article has now been cleaned up. The main motivation in this work was giving our cleanup templates a consistent layout: the most common is "this article (section) may (appears to be) '. Please ." As for the ambiguity in what's required, I've changed the "and" to an "or" in the instructions to allow for the possibility that only one is needed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite an improvement. The use of 'may' is standard with cleanup templates, so that other editors can review whether an article presently needs cleanup. And the template already includes a parameter to specify that a section needs to be wikified rather than the entire article, e.g. (which should probably be mentioned in the template's documentation), so I agree that the tag doesn't need to mention it explicitly.


 * This is the proposed change in a more standard format (nice idea, that sandbox), including two distinctly formatted sentences, and with the first sentence entirely bolded. I've also condensed the second sentence to avoid forcing the date parameter onto a third line, although the wording may need some tweaking. I don't mind which formatting we use, but if possible I'd like to avoid having the date parameter on a third line. I assume that 'Please help out' is a pragmatic solution to a couple of wording issues: if we can improve this wording we should, but otherwise it's fine. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the standard seems to be moving away from using small text and line breaks unnecessarily, and only the violation should really be bolded and not the whole first sentence. At least that's the way things have been moving recently. It should also help with keeping the template to two lines (or at least, to go to three only in cases where other templates go to three). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If space is at a premium, we can reword from "Please help out" so simply "Please help". -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it. – Liveste (talk • edits) 14:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If there's a guideline advocating these changes (or an otherwise compelling good reason), then I'll have no problem with this template following suit. But if not, then I prefer to keep the formatting the way it is – i.e., first sentence entirely bolded and a small second sentence. Both examples of formatting are widely used on many of the maintenance templates at Template messages/Cleanup. Alternatively, if other editors here arrive at a consensus to change the formatting, then I'll jump on the bandwagon too. – Liveste (talk • edits) 14:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd actually thought there was one, but seeing as I couldn't find it I've made a proposal regarding standardisation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the new template - small is better! Paxse (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Enabling editprotected as there seems to be agreement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the editprotected tag temporarily, because the exact consensus is still unclear. Since no-one else has objected to your style proposals (half-bolded first sentence and uniform text size), I'll go along with it as well. But I'd like the wording of the second sentence proposed by Whpq and me to be used: "Please [ help] by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the 's layout." This shorter sentence allows the date parameter to be included in the second line, rather than forcing a third one. Personally, I'd also put "Please help" as an edit link, but I don't mind either way. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure - let's go with that revision. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. The template sandbox contains the consensus wording and style. Looks like we're good to go. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Please check the current version of the page to ensure that it looks as you intended. l'aquatique  | &#10017; |  talk  02:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"wikified" link in template
Wow, I didn't realise that the previous changes redirected the "wikified" link in the first sentence back to the glossary definition, as opposed to linking to the main project page. This basically undid the consensus in the discussion before it. I think that the "wikified" link should be redirected back to WikiProject Wikify: as previously discussed, the project page gives more comprehensive information on how to wikify an article for those users who don't already know how to do it properly, in addition to allowing people to join the project more readily. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 22:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please update links
WP:BUILD and WP:CONTEXT have been merged into MOS:LINK, so relevant internal links should be replaced with relevant internal links A. di M. (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done — { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 17:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki
Please add it:Template:W. Thank you--Trixt (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Template:Wikify/doc is not protected, so you could have done this yourself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Date + Severity?
Could  be tagged onto the template for automatic dating, so less tag maintenance edits would be needed, less load for the bots to put on. Also, maybe a severity level, for categorization, for those working on wikification by category, which is simply by date at the moment, why not by severity? As in, minor, moderate, urgent, or such. EX:

Being added to respective categories: Category:Articles that need to be wikified/urgent. Or similar.

Judicatus | Talk | Contributions 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Cats
The "All" cat should be at Category:All articles that need to be wikified, so I have created that. The monthly cats should be Category:Articles that need to be wikified from XXX instead of Wikify from XXX. Wew will get those created and them mod the template, unless theres a good reason no to. Rich Farmbrough, 19:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Interwiki addition request
Please add mr:साचा:विकिकरण.Thank you Mahitgar (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Categories and interwikis for this template are added to Template:Wikify/doc. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 10:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Put "wikify" in quotation marks
Since this term is pretty much an invented term on Wikipedia (and may not be familiar to new users), I'd like to request we put the word wikified in quotation marks, not trying to be picky, but I think it should be more clear, since unless it gets into the Merriam-Webster dictionary one day, its still one of those snowclones maybe. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It doesn't matter that the word is a neologism—it is a valid word regardless. It's already wikilinked to our glossary, in any event. I've deactivated the . {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits}&#125; 03:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's still worth considering a reword. Peacock was reworded to remove the jargon in question, for instance. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor update
Hi- Minor formatting request: There are 2 links in the text which are redirects. I've updated the links in Template:Wikify/sandbox. Could someone update the template code for us? Thanks --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Plastikspork (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A tool
Does anybody like using this in the template? its a tool that suggests links to other pages. Its pretty cool. Tim1357 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Nickj/Can We Link It suggests that this tool will unfortunately no longer be available in a month's time. If it can be migrated onto the toolserver then I'd be very keen to have it linked from this template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

One more wiki
Please add hr:Predložak:Wikipoveznice. Thanks!

--Gdje je nestala duša svijeta (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Image
editprotected

Please replace the existing image with this more informative image to minimize confusion (see )  THE M O NO  ™ 00:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. If anyone objects to this please revert and discuss. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been a small discussion on IRC about the choice of colour here. Could we not have white on pale yellow? Even with normal vision, this is hard to make out. I believe this particular choice fails the Manual of Style (accessibility) guidelines on colour choices. How about darkblue on paleyellow? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Could someone please either increase the contrast between text and background or make a new color icon? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this one, which merges the base layout of the standard notice icon (blue) with the new emblem? [[file:information icon wikify.svg|50px|inline]] Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks weird to me:

ǝɥʇ M0N0 farewell 03:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about new tagging bot
This message is being sent to inform you of a community discussion regarding a bot proposal. The bot would automatically tag new articles with matinence tags, such as this template. More details can be found at the proposal. Thank you,  Ⓢ ock   16:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

De-HTMLing is unclear
The template does not make it clear it should be used in cases where an article has html elements that need to be wikified. Currently it implies it is only to be used for articles that need more internal links. I think we need to improve the wording, add parameters to trigger variants, or create a dedicated cleanup template for articles that need to be de-html'ed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How about modifying the help statement to say "Please help by adding relevant internal links, converting HTML markup to wiki syntax, or improving the article's layout"? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

+hu

 * hu:sablon:nincs formázva
 * ✅. Added via documentation page. – Liveste (talk • edits) 11:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

New cleanup template for Html markup
I created Cleanup-Html in response to the various comments done. I initiated a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikify. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mono, 22 December 2010
edit protected

Please replace 

with <pre style="overflow: auto">

to help new users understand how they can help edit Wikipedia.

Mono (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it sandbox-tested already, and for what reason? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mono (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any discussion about this change? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some here, some background here... Mono (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure that's enough discussion at this time. Maybe start a thread below here and get clear consensus for this style. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain the purpose of the font size tag? --Bsherr (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest, Mono, that you remove the fontsize tag. I see no good use for it. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 01:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And the and tags. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 20:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)