Template talk:Wikify

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Request for bold emphasis 2 Centering 3 Small text 4 Embedded link 5 Auto-tagging 6 Cache 7 Removed a penis picture... 8 Protected 9 Added "Please remove this template after wikifying." 10 Suggestions for changing the template 11 Why I reverted back to the old style. 12 Category 13 Semiprotection 14 Slightly stronger wording about removal 15 Template:Wikify-date 16 Change? 16.1 Instructions

[edit] 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)

[edit] Centering

Does this need to be centered? It is the only frequently used message like this that is centered the same way. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 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)

[edit] 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|✍]] 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 [shallot] 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 {{cleanup}} and others. [[User:Tomf688|tomf688]] 01:57, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Embedded link

The current link (which is to to the basic formatting codes) isn't much use to most editors faced with 'wikify' — 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 Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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? —MICLER (Мыклр) 00:36, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.  —siroχo 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 [shallot] 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)

[edit] 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:

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

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

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

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. ^BlankVerse 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Category

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Template:Wikify-date

Please use Template:Wikify-date instead of this one. Use it by adding {{Wikify-date|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}} which is the same as {{Wikify-date|March 2006}}, 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 {{cleanup}} 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)

[edit] 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 {{{1}}} 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 {{{1}}} 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)

[edit] 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)