Template talk:Sofixit

Shall we be more polite?

In the light of use in places like this, we should consider more politeness to this template message. How about adding a line thanking the user for suggesting a fix? -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 09:05, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually tempted to put this on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion since this template seems useless especially since the user putting the sofixit tag on the other users page could probably fix the problem themselves so it's rude at best and repetitive at worst. Jtkiefer 04:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have listed this template at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

TfD nomination of Template:sofixit

Template:sofixit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:sofixit. Thank you. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion 04:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

TFD

This template was nominated for deletion, but consensus was to keep it. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005#Template:Sofixit for details. Radiant_>|< 08:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This template is messed up without a parameter

See this diff for what I mean. I don't know how to fix it, otherwise I'd already have done so :P Stifle (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, happened to me too. [1] - ulayiti (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it now so it works with or without subst:. —Pengo 22:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we really be encouraging this template to be used with subst? I don't see why. I think it's pretty rude to pretend we typed all the text ourselves. I think for the recipient to see the template code (which says "{{sofixit}}" is instructive and adds to the transparency that makes Wikipedia work.—Pengo 22:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is still messed up.^[2] I will see if I can fix that later. -- ReyBrujo 04:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Subst?

It's a self reference...so, should we really be substing it? 1ne 13:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate subst'ing this. I don't want people to think this is how I write. —Chowbok 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Easily overused

As it happens, though I have seen this template used at least four times (I'll dig up links if anyone insists), but not one of these seemed to be appropriate, because they were each in response to various raised issues (or complaints or whatever) made by people who did not obviously have the time or means to "sofixit" — things along the lines of "the section on such-and-such ought to be expanded," or "there's something inconsistent about these views, but I don't know which one is correct".

As far as I'm concerned, the nature of the template itself is largely to blame, because it it so broadly worded. Instead, perhaps the suggested use of this template should be in regards to: copyediting fixes ("You misspelled blah), word-for-word suggestions of additions or removals ("This article aught to mention the famous 1857 such-and-such"), and basically nothing else; while we all have the ability to type and copyedit, we're not all experts in the field of articles we might happen to be interested in, so we can't always "fixit" when it comes to certain areas. Does what I'm saying make sense? What do people think? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 03:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. (All right, I just stuck that in myself to preempt any smart-alecks who would think of doing that. ;) $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 03:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that rewording this template is the best way to go, but I definitely agree it should be used carefully and conservatively. As Lenoxus explains, a reply of 'sofixit' is appropriate in certain areas - where users mention simple, obvious errors that they can easily fix themselves - but highly inappropriate in others, and in the latter cases it's arguably downright incivil to use this template in place of a proper reply. Terraxos 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

called trolls

I was called trolls when I used this template to someone who just "talks." Sigh! --Manop - TH 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, while you probably didn't deserve it, that might not be the best use of the template — see what I wrote above about typos and such. A better response might be something like "Wikipedia is not the place to discuss that, try the article on Internet forums for a list of good places to chat." Hmm, is there a template for that response? It would be pretty useful… $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Indent Fix

If you use this with indentation, such as:

:{{sofixit}}

It doesn't indent. This is because there is a newline after the title. Will it break anything if the </noinclude> is moved to the start of the second line instead of the end of the first line to avoid pushing the newline character when the template is used? I have made this minor edit and I do not see any problem. -- Kainaw^(what?) 17:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename?

I don't have any problems with the tempate per se, but I think the name is a little rude. How about just {{fixit}}, which I see is already redirected here. Would that be a better name in general? ←Ben^B4 00:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would never use this template in a million years, but that's no disrespect for people that do. "So fix it" is pretty snide, especially if someone forgets to subst it so the original name is removed. {{template:bebold}} perhaps? - Richfife 22:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going to take inspiration from the template itself and do the rename. Thhhppptttt!!!! - Richfife 22:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, come on! {{sofixit}} is so much a part of wikipedia lore that it's become vaguely common to tell people on IRC "{{sofixit}}!", even in non-wikipedia-related channels :P This move is a step backwards! >:O — flamingspinach | (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll reply just as soon as I finish shoving this big ol' stick up my ass. - Richfife 00:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Sadly, I've found that in Wikipedia, anything that people are really emotionally attached to almost always should be removed. For my knife is sharp and my heart is a stone. - Richfife 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Get that effing stick out of your ass, Think Of The Children! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
            • The children will just have to find their own stick. This one is mine. - Richfife (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ask Mr. Roosevelt (i.e. his Big Stick). 68.101.123.219 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Renaming back to "Bebold"

The argument to change it back to "sofixit" was "most new users probably won't see the title of the template". Which basically boils down to "it's not very noticable", which doesn't address the issue of whether it's a good idea or not. - Richfife (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the move. As much as I understand your desire to remove anything that people are emotionally attached to, this template was at its current title for quite some time. While it may seem snide, it was never intended as such, and implying so isn't particularly nice to the person who named it. And, as someone said above, the IRC line really loses its punch when the template's been moved. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So your arguments are: 1) It's been that way for a long time 2) Changing the title isn't nice to the originator and 3) The new title has a negative impact on IRC discussions. So, from the top:

1) I don't see the relevance. I don't want to break out all the old cliches or dance on the precipice of Godwin's Law, but Wikipedia should not be influenced by its own traditions. If something is wrong, the fact that it has persisted for a long time isn't relevant. It should be corrected. I stumble across old stuff that should have been removed years before all the time.

2) Refusing to make a change because it might offend the original creator is counter to Wikipedia's goals. First priority is always the quality of the encyclopedia, farther down the list is the feelings of individuals editors. It's not super relevant, but the creation comment was "To all newbies: There's a mistake? Fix it yourself!". Which you have to admit is pretty snide. Sooo... I don't really see how you can support the argument that it was never intended to be snide.

3) IRC isn't part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia shouldn't be expected to support IRC shorthand. - Richfife (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Speak now, or forever hold your peace. - Richfife (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose move to Bebold. Even in on-wiki discusions this is often used as a link like {{sofixit}} and has hundreds of incoming links under that name. Sofixit is the name that most people know this template as and I've seen no convincing reason to change it. Mr.Z-man 20:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument for the change is that people can, and do, find it offensive (see above). It is often used as a semi-official rubber stamp for newbie biting. The only arguments against that have been brought out are that it's tradition and people know it as sofixit. One of the most popular links on Wikipedia used to be WP:VAIN, until it was changed to WP:COI for the same reason. It seems like sofixit has become some sort of shibboleth among the more experienced wikipedia editors, which is divisive and should be avoided. - Richfife (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC) p.s. Yes, I've been known to nibble on the occasional newbie, but I always do it long hand so that it's a clearly from me and does not represents a sort of semi-official policy. I'm opposed to using warning templates in general except for numbered linear templates that lead to a particular agreed up on result.

A lot of the arguments you seem to be presenting, especially the one about newbie biting, are ones that I would expect at a deletion debate for the template. However, this is simply about the title of the template, which is why this argument doesn't seem to hold much weight. Those who wish to use {{bebold}} can use it; those who wish to use {{sofixit}} can use it. But there was never any reason to move the template -- in fact, most users should never see the name of it because the template should be substituted. You've made me most confused. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a text in the template space which is snide and offensive. Some people subst, some people don't. As I mentioned above, "most people won't notice" isn't a reason to keep it. If it was in the template text itself, the text should be changed. It's not, it's in the title. Changing the title is the only way that the text can be corrected. Yes, this is a content dispute. The fact that the content in question is a title really shouldn't weigh into the matter. - Richfife (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

People who find this offensive are probably not going to be able to integrate themselves into the 'open project that anyone can take part in', anyway. To my mind this template is, and always has been (I wasn't a newbie THAT long ago) a kinda light-hearted, slightly teasing but ultimately effective way to get people involved. It's a bit eye-opening for a lot of people when they realise they actually can fix it, and this template states they can clearly and directly. 'Be bold' just doesn't pack the same punch. This is all personal opinion, by the way, but so is most of the above ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 00:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to side with Mr.Z-man's usual august judgement here. In my opinion, {{sofixit}} transcended from a meme limited to the more veteran editors long ago, and if I may be daring enough, I'll argue that its usage over the other available monikers has entered the collective Wikipedian subconscious to the degree that WP:TRIFECTA and WP:BOLD have. I find the potential offensiveness of the template—and it's not even particularly offensive!—to be a non-issue as it should always be substed: only the person leaving the message will ever know what it was called, and they can call whichever name they want. It's the thought that counts, after all. east.718 at 00:57, March 30, 2008

Ok then. - Richfife (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Pity it can't be called {{Why Aren't You Smart Enough To Do That}}. (this is a joke, of course)68.101.123.219 (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

add some kind of mention for blocked ips and protected pages

There probably should be some mention in the template's text about what to do if you can't "fix it" because your ip is blocked or the page is protected. OlEnglish (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ask for citations

I just used this template (it's been a long time, and I forgot to subst). But it occurred to me that the expanded text should also call attention to the need for a citation; after all, the template has been around since long before WP started emphasizing accurate sourcing. It's important when addressing comments like "the article's account is wrong; what actually happened was this and this and this", which may be true but an edit shouldn't be encouraged without proof. David Brooks (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Template is broken

Use of this template in its current form has excess overhead for load times and does not properly subst: all parts of the template as they should be. There was no consensus to change the substitution method to the heavier method and all caps mw:Help:Magic Words are the norm and are not considered shouting. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

On the page you linked to, parser functions are lowercase (only variables are uppercase, and safesubst isn't a variable). I'm not sure what you're saying the "heavier" method is. I did change the int:edit to just use it directly, though, since that message doesn't ever change. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 June 2020

Many of the links and references to parts of Wikipedia web pages are significantly outdated. The following code should represent updated text and links replaced with the pages they redirect to:
{{{icon|[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]]}}} Thank you for your suggestion{{safesubst:<noinclude />#if:{{{1|}}}| regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. When you believe {{indefinite article|{{{type|article}}}}} needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a [[wiki]], so anyone can edit almost any {{{type|article}}} by simply following the '''Edit''' link at the top.<br /> The Wikipedia community encourages you to [[Wikipedia:Be bold|'''be bold''' in updating pages]]. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out [[Help:Editing|''how to edit a page'']], or use the [[Draft:Sandbox|sandbox]] to try out your editing skills. [[Help:Getting started|New contributors are always welcome]]. You don't even need to [[Special:Userlogin|log in]] (although there are [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|many reasons you might want to]]). {{{2|}}}<!-- Template:uw-sofixit --> <!-- Template:Sofixit --><noinclude> {{Documentation}} </noinclude> —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this is almost all just bypassing perfectly good redirects, which I do not support. The only part I support is changing the "edit this page link" to "Edit link". P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, Paine Ellsworth, I missed your comment when I stepped away for a bit. I checked the code in the sandbox and saw that there was at least one substantive change, so I went ahead with the update. You are welcome to revert if you feel that this change needs further discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It's all good, Jonesey95. As long as there is at least one important change, such as the edit link, there is nothing in policy that would say no to bypassing the redirects. So it's all good, and thank you for the nod! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Redesign

I've redesigned this template, mainly to help make it more conversational in tone (it's not bad currently, but the icon and some of the language still sounds a bit too template-y). I also made some beneath-the-surface changes, such as including the "you may want to log in" suggestion by default only when it's used on an IP's talk page, since for everyone else it's unnecessary. Does the redesign look alright to everyone? I'll implement in a few days if it's good. We'll also want to change {{Solookitup}} into a wrapper so that it'll remain synced. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Only objection is the link to the huge 70+ page tutorial that makes us loos readers. Best send them to the overview page (that is already here) so they can pick what info to search about. Very detrimental to keep sending potential new editors to a set of pages we know dont help.--Moxy 🍁 15:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You've made that point repeatedly and other editors have not been persuaded by it. But fine, I'll keep the link pointed to Help:Getting started for now, and hopefully that page will eventually be retired. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)