Template talk:Wikify

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Wikify is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases. Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

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 17 Regarding Date 18 Proposed Edit 19 Request for interwiki link 20 aother request for interwiki link 21 Date parameter 22 Section 23 Talk page 24 Old Image 24.1 Image Removed 25 weird thing 26 Request to bypass redirects 27 A change to the usage instructions 28 Wish: a replacement request and talk link 29 Line break for tagging date 30 Cleanup syntax 31 Statement out of place. 32 Image 33 Bringing "Wikify" template into alignment WP:V and glossary definition of "wikify"

[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?

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

[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)

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

[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)

[edit] Regarding Date

I think the entire wikify template should be substed, like {{prod}} 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)

N 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).

[edit] Proposed Edit

<noinclude>{{hprotected}}</noinclude><div class="messagebox cleanup metadata plainlinks">
{|style="width:100%;background:none"
|width=60px|[[Image:Information_icon.svg|40px]]
|'''This article may need to be [[WP:WIKIFY|wikified]] to meet Wikipedia's [[WP:STYLE|quality standards]].'''<br /><small>Please help [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article], especially its [[WP:LEAD|introduction]], [[WP:LAYOUT|section layout]], and [[WP:CONTEXT|relevant]] [[WP:BTW|internal links]]. ([[WP:EDIT|help]])</small>
|}</div><includeonly>[[Category:All pages needing to be wikified]]{{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[Category:Wikify from {{{1}}}]]|[[Category:Articles that need to be wikified]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>
{{/doc}}
</noinclude>

Which looks like:

---

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

No icon on the wikify template, please. That would ugly up hundreds of pages. Ashibaka tock 18:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, minus the icon. Zsinj^Talk 01:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Date parameter

Can the following line be added to display the date parameter?

{{#if:{{{1|}}}|<br/>This article has been tagged since '''{{{1}}}'''.}}

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 ({{{1}}}), 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).

[edit] Section

{{editprotected}} Per this edit [1] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

<div class="messagebox cleanup metadata plainlinks">
{|style="width:100%;background:none"
| [[Image:Wikify logo.svg|60px]]
|'''This article (or section) may need to be [[WP:WIKIFY|wikified]] to meet Wikipedia's [[WP:STYLE|quality standards]].'''<br /><small>Please help [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article], especially its [[WP:LAYOUT|section layout]], and [[WP:CONTEXT|relevant]] [[WP:BTW|internal links]]. ([[WP:EDIT|help]]){{#if:{{{1|}}}|<br/>This article has been tagged since '''{{{1}}}'''.}}</small>
|}</div>

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)

Y Done and if I do say so myself, it looks pretty good. Cbrown1023 talk 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:

<font size="+2" color="blue"><nowiki>[[Wiki]]</nowiki>

Result:

[[Wiki]]

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Request to bypass redirects

{{editprotected}}

Change

|'''This article (or section) may need to be [[WP:WIKIFY|wikified]] to meet Wikipedia's [[WP:STYLE|quality standards]].'''<br /><small>Please help [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article], especially its [[WP:LAYOUT|section layout]], and [[WP:CONTEXT|relevant]] [[WP:BTW|internal links]]. ([[WP:EDIT|help]]){{#if:{{{1|}}}|<br/>This article has been tagged since '''{{{1}}}'''.|{{#if:{{{date|}}}|<br/>This article has been tagged since '''{{{date}}}'''.}}}}</small>

to

|'''This article (or section) may need to be [[:Category:Articles that need to be wikified|wikified]] to meet Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|quality standards]].'''<br /><small>Please help [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article], especially its [[Wikipedia:Guide to layout|section layout]], and [[Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context|relevant]] [[Wikipedia:Build the web|internal links]]. ([[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|help]]){{#if:{{{1|}}}|<br/>This article has been tagged since '''{{{1}}}'''.|{{#if:{{{date|}}}|<br/>This article has been tagged since '''{{{date}}}'''.}}}}</small>

Thanks, Iamunknown 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Y 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)

[edit] A change to the usage instructions

{{editprotected}}

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

{{subst:dated|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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Verifiability_and_sources,

• 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#editprotected. 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)

[edit] Line break for tagging date

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

From:

|'''This article (or section) may need to be [[:Category:Articles that need to be wikified|wikified]] to meet Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|quality standards]].'''<br /><small>Please help [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article], especially its [[Wikipedia:Guide to layout|section layout]], and [[Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context|relevant]] [[Wikipedia:Build the web|internal links]]. {{#if:{{{date|}}}|This article has been tagged since '''{{{date}}}'''. }}([[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|help]])</small>|}

To:

|'''This article (or section) may need to be [[:Category:Articles that need to be wikified|wikified]] to meet Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|quality standards]].'''<br /><small>Please help [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article], especially its [[Wikipedia:Guide to layout|section layout]], and [[Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context|relevant]] [[Wikipedia:Build the web|internal links]]. {{#if:{{{date|}}}|<br/>This article has been tagged since '''{{{date}}}'''. }}([[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|help]])</small>|}

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

[edit] Cleanup syntax

{{editprotected}}

• A: Don't need the parentheses around "section".
• B: The template doesn't currently respond to |article, |section flags. ie {{wikify|section}} just returns the same thing as wikify with no args.

Can we get this fixed? MrZaius^talk 03:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically, replace

article (or section)

with

{{{1|article or section}}}

I assume. Sounds fine. Gracenotes^T § 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Y 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 {{{1}}}, 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 {{{1}}} 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).

[edit] Statement out of place.

{{editprotected}}

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

{{editprotected}} 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 [[w]] 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)

N Not done seems not to have consensus at this time. Happy‑melon 17:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

This article or section needs to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this article with relevant internal links.

Proposed:

Please wikify this article or section. Help improve this article by adding wiki markup and relevant internal links (but don't remove links to external sources).

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify, which is the only place I've found with actual instructions for wikification. Perhaps a new Wikipedia: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 </small> tag and the opening <noinclude> tag. Powers ^T 14:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool -- the link to Wikipedia: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:

Please wikify this article or section. Help improve this article by adding wiki markup and relevant internal links (but don't remove links to external sources).

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