Template talk:Infobox website/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Make name optional

{{editprotected}}

The name can be grabbed from the page title if they're the same. The following change needs to be made: 

{{{websitename|{{{name}}}}}}

becomes 

{{{websitename|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

 Not done The website name may differ from the pagename in terms of capitalisation, spacing, use of special characters, etc. I'm also not sure what would happen on pages like eBay, which is actually at EBay with a java hack to lowercase the first letter in the title. Surely it's not that much of a hardship to specify one parameter? Happy‑melon 19:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Re-enabling. This has zero impact on existing templates (if the attribute is specified the template will still use it) and the infobox documentation encourages tolerance to missing parameters. There's no reason to force users to enter a param which is often unneeded. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The proposed change merely implements a default in the event no parameter is provided. If the site name differs from our article name, it's easy enough to provide a param; otherwise it seems easy enough to just leave it blank, no? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I made the change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All parameters optional

When something's not known and not knowable the box looks ugly when there's a blank space, so I turned the owner and author into optional parameters - I went ahead and did the others, too, no row looks better than a blank space. --Random832 (contribs) 21:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Alexa rank

Could someone restore the alexa parameter? I can't find any consensus for the removal in this talkpage. (And admits can't just remove it just because they don't like it.) I made a case for the inclusion of the parameter above awhile ago, but didn't get a response. -- Taku (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done The rough agreement from a year or two ago seems to support retaining it as an optional parameter. Nothing's really changed since, so I think it's reasonable to restore unless a new consensus emerges to remove it. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Demonyms

All right, from what I do know, there are some websites that have demonyms applied to their members. For instance, users of 4chan uses "4channers," (or alternatively, *channers if identifying most imageboard users) and the internet forum Channel 9 uses the demonym "Niners" to identify them as users/residents of Channel 9.

I am proposing a demonym = {demonym} to be added to the infobox. Just like physical towns, counties, provinces, states, and nations, some online communities have an "official" demonym attributed to them.

-- azure talk × contribs 15:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

These are rarely official, there can be dozens of them for a single site, and they're of minor importance. This information is fine for the article body (if properly sourced), but not worth including in the infobox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

RSS feed

I noticed Template:Infobox comic strip had a line for an RSS feed link, which seems common to many major sites. What about adding that capability to this template? - Liontamer (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Change interwiki pl:

plWiki: old – Szablon:Infobox Strona WWW, new – Szablon:Strona WWW infobox -- Grzegorz Wysocki (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Convert to {{infobox}}

{{editprotected}}

I've updated the sandbox with an updated version of this template which uses {{infobox}} as a base class, for future maintainability and consistency with other infoboxes. Just needs overwritten minus the sandbox tag and with the protection icon shown. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. And thanks for the detailed instructions. :) --Elonka 05:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Alex rank item

{{editprotected}} Could you put the alex rank at the bottom of the box instead of at the second from top? Thanks in advance. -- Taku (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive link

I think a link to the website's listing on the Internet Archive can be useful. It will enable the option to view how websites looked in the past, and it is also the only way to view websites that are now offline.

Since the Internet Archive doesn't always have an archived version available, this should be an optional parameter like archive = yes. --Nezek (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Status

How should this be used? Basically there is problems on some articles where this is used to be a blow-by-blow account. Should it be "Active" instead of "Online"? When should it be changed? Looking for some consensus, and possible policy, on this. JeremyWJ (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It should never be blow-by-blow: that's recentism. Ideally, the infobox should reflect the current article as referenced by reliable sources. usually these lag enough (or don't care enough) that temporary downtime is ignored. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking for advice

I think there's a certain gap in the infoboxes. What should I use for a news blog? Webzine isn't quite right. Website almost fits, but we really need some specific fields like Magazine has, for things like Writers and Editors.

Currently this is taken care of messily, as seen in the articles Joystiq and Rock, Paper, Shotgun. But magazine articles look smart thanks to their unique infobox, as seen in PC Gamer.

What is the solution? A new infobox, something I've missed, or new fields in an existing infobox (probably Website)? Smurfy 10:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I once wrote {{infobox weblog}} for this, but I think rolling it in here was sensible. If you really need new fields for a certain subject, propose them here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

License parameter

I've been bold and added a new parameter to this template, content license, so that the license of the website's content (e.g. GFDL or one of the Creative Commons licenses) can be displayed. I named it content license to avoid any confusion with software licenses. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} That sounds like a great idea. Could some admit put this parameter below "Available language(s)" where it makes more sense? Thanks in advance. -- Taku (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I propose also a software license parameter. Both pieces of information are valuable to users. How about it? --Paxcoder (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This is really trivia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
How so? If people benefit from having it with the other software, why is it trivia for web-based software? --Paxcoder (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Articles on web-based software use {{infobox software}}, not {{infobox website}}. While it might be nice to know, that, say, Daily Kos runs on top of Scoop (a free software CMS), it is not particularly germane to, y'know, the purpose or impact of the site. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... What about OpenStreetMap, can you suggest a solution? Thanks --Paxcoder (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Even there, the software that the site runs on only has one single sentence of detail in the article body. Should that be expanded upon, it would be appropriate to add an {{infobox software}} at that point in the article to hold the details in question. But it's not greatly pertinent to the site as a whole, at least not to the extent that the content licence is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

tweaking out collapsibility

{{editprotected}} I'd like to make the following change to the template. the '| image...' line would read as follows: 

| image   = {{#if:{{{collapsible|}}}|{{hidden begin|title={{{collapsetext|Screenshot}}}|titlestyle=text-align:center}}}}{{{screenshot|}}}

this adds a new parameter - collapsetext - which will give the option for adding text other than the default 'Screenshot'. This should not affect the functioning of the template in any other way.

I also noticed that collapsibility is not documented - I'll fix that now. --Ludwigs2 02:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Current Status field

I'm curious about the Current Status field. Is it meant as a minute-to-minute flag showing the current accessibility of the site, or a more general 'the site hasn't been updated in months' status? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's intended more for historical issues, e.g. sites that were once popular but are now defunct, or have been sold to or merged into other sites. --Ludwigs2 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That's my opinion also. The issue arose today with Fark, as they were having issues upstream that made them temporarily invisible to the rest of us. As a result, a couple of editors changed the field to variations of 'offline'. I was reverting them because I felt it that wasn't the intent of the field. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It might be worth clarifying that in the docs (which I'll do now), and maybe adding a switch statement to limit the values possible. --Ludwigs2 21:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Cool. Thank you very much for your efforts. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Caption field

I came here looking for info on the "caption" field. The given description is lame. Blue Rasberry 22:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me elaborate: the description says

Caption saying screenshot of <website name> as of <date>

and it gave me the impression that I could feed it a date and it would output the article title and extra words saying "screenshot of <article> title as of <date>". I propose changing the description to

Caption, expected content is "screenshot of <website name> as of <date>"

I should qualify my proposal by saying I have no idea of what the precedent is for creating similar descriptions in similar tempates. Blue Rasberry 22:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a freeform text field. You can set the caption to whatever you want. The suggested text is "screenshot of X as of Y" because this seems like an appropriate caption most of the time, but you could set it to whatever prose you wish. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Add Compete.com rank?

Anyone have any thoughts about adding Compete.com rankings to the infobox? Compete has essentially eclipsed Alexa as being more "accurate" now for website metrics. And, according to Compete.com, it's got more visitors, too. (Alexa has never shown their own rank on their own website.) Gary King (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd never heard of compete.com until now, and its article doesn't inspire too much confidence... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Quantcast is another leader in the market, although when discussing website rankings, Compete.com is usually used more often. Generally speaking, Quantcast is used by companies to determine some more indepth statistics for their websites, while Compete.com is used for more general stats. Gary King (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox sync

{{editprotected}}

Please sync with the sandbox to clean some code up. Fixes include using image and image2 for the logo and screenshot rather than above and image (which allows for the clean insertion of a logo caption) and renumbering of the data lines. No change in default output, only new feature is an optional image caption. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, checked several pages, seems not to have done any damage.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Page views" field?

How about adding a "page views" field? It could be flexible, similar to "revenue" where we only put what we know (i.e. if we got revenues for only a specific month, like January 2010, then we put "US$1 million (January 2010)", etc.) Gary King (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Move URL to end

This looks really weird to see the URL at the top. I know, I know, it is an infobox about a website, but the normal placement of a URL is always at the bottom of the infobox, and this should be no exception. The structure should be to start with a description and end with the URL, not the other way around. {{editprotected}} Move label1 = [[Uniform Resource Locator|URL]] and data1 = {{{url|}}} to the end, after data 12. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
To go to a website on an infobox, I too am used to going to the bottom, not the top. This should be changed. Niew (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I support moving the URL to the bottom of the infobox for consistency's sake. Every other infobox on wikipedia has websites listed at the bottom. Gobonobo T C 03:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur. URL at bottom at the bottom is standard. --Lexein (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

IPv6 support

Can we have a field for IPv6 support?

Parameter: ipv6

Label: IPv6 support

Explanation: Does the website (or, in the case of a website representing a network-based service, the service) support IPv6 operation?

Possible Values: Yes, No

I created Template:Infobox website with IPv6 which is a copy-and-paste of Template:Infobox website but with this addition made.

I updated Amazon S3 with IPv6 support information.

Duckbill (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit protected}} Could a "footnotes" section please be added, similar to many other infobox templates? There's a sandbox version with the update; also, I fixed the data field numbering too, see: [1]. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

plus Added. Couldn't see the benefit to renumbering though? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexa bot

I have written a bot to update Alexa rankings. It depends on a pre-defined list of articles and it's currently being tried and discussed in this request for approval. Please check the bot contributions, add your feedbacks and help me improve the list of articles by reading these few tips.--OsamaK 23:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Change screenshot to collapsible bottom portion of box

I think it would be a good idea for the screenshot image to be possibly relocated or at the very least reconfigured to match the screenshot usage on Template:Infobox_dot-com_company. Would allow for more in-depth screenshots without taking over screen space. --Varnent (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Alexa increase/decrease

Many of the articles that use the alexa parameter include a Increase Decrease or Steady to show whether the Alexa rank has increased or decreased in the last month. I propose that this be discouraged. The meaning of these symbols is not immediately obvious to casual readers, and I think they fail at what they're intended to convey: whether a site is growing or shrinking in traffic. A small month-to-month change in ranking is not necessarily indicative of a long-term trend. And it may be driven by the growth or decline of other sites as much as of the site in question.

A ranking change may be worth noting in the article, for example, if a site goes from 10,000 to 100 over the course of a year. But most changes are small and not worth noting, and those that are, probably can't be described in the limited space of an infobox. Toohool (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki request

  • please add arabic inter wiki [[ar:قالب:معلومات موقع وب]] --Heshamdiab116 (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    It's already there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Italicize site name

{{Editprotected}} The line: 

| title   = {{{websitename|{{{name|<includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly> }}} }}}

needs to be: 

| title   = {{{websitename|''{{{name|<includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly> }}}'' }}}

Website names are italicized just like the title of any other publication; cf. italicization of the |work= parameter in {{Cite web}}. See also MLA Handbook (6th ed., sect. 5.9.1.), etc. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be:
| title   = {{{websitename|''<nowiki/>{{{name|<includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly> }}}<nowiki/>'' }}}
in case the name begins or ends with an apostrophe? That would avoid generating "'''" which would switch to bold, not italic. Eubulides (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done as describe by Eubulides. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Italics

Up in #Italicize site name, the decision was made to make the title of the website in italics. I propose changing it back, which would involve changing 

| title   = {{{websitename|''<nowiki/>{{{name|<includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly> }}}<nowiki/>'' }}}

back to 

| title   = {{{websitename|{{{name|<includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly> }}} }}}

The reason for this is that website names/titles should definitely not be italicised by default. A common sense example is whether you would write "I contribute to Wikipedia" or "I contribute to Wikipedia" (and in fact, looking at the Wikipedia article, the infobox is the only placed that Wikipedia is italicised). But to actually verify what I'm saying, see the Chicago Manual of Style (specifically ch. 8, sec. 186 and ch. 14, sec. 243), which says that "General titles of websites mentioned or cited in text or notes are normally set in roman, headline-style, without quotation marks." and "Titles of the types of works discussed elsewhere in this chapter (i.e., books, journals, etc.) should usually be treated the same whether they are published in print or online." It goes on to give examples of Project Gutenberg, Internet Movie Database, Google, Facebook, MySpace, Apple.com, Microsoft.com and so on as websites that should not be italicised. It says that only websites which replicate print works, such as The Chicago Manual of Style Online, Encyclopaedia Britannica Online and Oxford English Dictionary Online, should be in italics. Most websites do not replicate print works and as a result should not be italicised. For the rare cases that do, this can be done in the actual article. Thanks in advance, Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This was implemented nearly two years ago and there haven't been any other complaints. Please could you discuss this change and reactivate if/when there is consensus to do so? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy to discuss this with anyone who wants to. Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I actually agree that italicizing the name of websites should not be done by default. An online publication website should be italicized, but other websites such as online retailer websites should definitely not be italicized. If it is italicized by default, there is no way to undo the italicization of the website name in the infobox when it should not be italicized. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that italicization is wrong here. The only time I would expect a website name to be italicized is when it's also the name of a newspaper orr magazine, which ordinarily would be italicized itself (even then, there's a slight shakiness; I think it's not technically right but I'd go along with it). I hope this will get changed back (and I never complained about it for the last two years because I just now noticed it. I guess I don't usually look at WP pages about websites). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I just want to add something I forgot to mention earlier: I think basing italicization here on what {{cite web}} does (as we apparently did) is a mistake, because I believe {{cite web}}'s treatment of the work parameter is itself a mistake. I have never agreed with the idea of putting something like Amazon.com, ARIA Charts, IMDb, Olympic.org, BoingBoing, etc., in italics on the premise that "it's like a book". Many WP editors also diagree that sites are works like books, because they frequently add extra single quotes to defeat the template's italicization, or shift the site into the publisher parameter to evade the formatting. I would dearly love to see {{cite web}} fixed/changed, but that's a discussion for another time and place. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support proposal to revert back to no italics by default preferably so that the template permits editors to manually specify italics if they wish. MOS:ITALIC states Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (such as Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries (like Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online) should also be italicized. Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis. This means it's up to editors to agree consensus on a per article basis. --Trevj (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, well this has been under discussion for 12 days and there are four in favour of removing the default italics and no-one opposing so I've made the change. Jenks24 (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Yay, and thanks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Business model

I think it would be a good idea to provide a more general alternative to the "commercial" field, allowing editors to specify the business model. For example, subscription only, freemium, adverts, charity. Yaris678 (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I've just come across Grooveshark which says "Commercial? Previously; now freemium", which kinda misses the point that fremium can be a valid commercial business model. Yaris678 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Available language(s) Link

Here the text "language" links to Natural language. I don't think this is accurate considering some websites (e.g. Wikipedia itself) are offered in constructed languages (e.g. Esperanto). —bse3 (talk • contribs • count • logs) 03:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The solution could be to add an optional parameter for the target of that link, in cases like that when the default isn't good enough. Would anyone oppose such an addition? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Again Alexa; why is it a legitimate datapoint?

The explanation of how Alexa works on the Alexa article does not seem to be remotely worthy of including in an infobox or anything else on Wikipedia. This page mentions that Alexa has been discussed in depth before, but such discussion is nowhere to be found. Why is Alexa legitimate for any purpose? Could someone just explain that sufficiently here please? --72.173.160.58 (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but it is to be found, but in the Archives: First (non-conclusive, IMO) discussion at Template talk:Infobox website/Archive 1#Alexa_Rank - ended with it being deleted; and suggestion for addition during Template talk:Infobox website/Archive 1#Slogan was granted without any opposition. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC

As I mentioned above, Jimbo Wales had suggested adding a field for Quantcast ranking because, at least for some website, it is much more accurate than Alexa since it directly measures the traffic of those websites, unlike Alexa which guesstimates. Of course having the most accurate and reliable data source is an important upside, but there are a couple of downsides for this. First, Quantcast is U.S-centric i.e. it only shows the ranking of the website amoug American Internet users. Second, it measures the ranking of some websites only (among 1374 websites, I found only 191 of which directly measured by Quantcast). For other websites, Quantcast seems to be guesstimating, just like Alexa. Any thoughts on how we can deal with the two ranking systems?--OsamaK (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There may be room for whichever traffic ranker is most appropriate for a given website, and there may never be a single ranker behind which Wikipedia or Wikimedia should "throw its weight." For example, in Spain, OJD Interactiva is stated to do a better job for Spain-based servers than Alexa or Quantcast, which agrees with OsamaK's centricity point above. For those entities which subscribe to Quantcast, those results should be considered reliable. Statcounter has been cited in many articles in industry news RS about traffic trends. IMHO Alexa, by not providing info about which sites are subscribers, might not be as reliable as we want. So, I predict, and would welcome, several templates, and bots, being made available, and guidelines with provisos for the use of which. A short list of extant services (top ten) which serve English-language sites (for enwp) would be a good place to start. --Lexein (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The 'two clocks' problem that you mentioned in the previous discussion is my main concern. I would support adding an additional Quantcast field for the 191 websites that are directly measured by Quantcast. In these cases, the template field should mention that the rankings are US-centric and verified, but I don't think it's very useful in other cases where both services are guesstimating.--OsamaK (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Measurements that are declared to be estimates should be deprecated. Services which are clear about their measurement methodology (such as a web "tag" on the subscribing entity's website, as used by Quantcast, StatCounter, and others), should be preferred. I would not suggest separate Alexa= and Quantcast= fields, but instead a single field for RankService=, along with Rank=, RankUpDown=, and RankCoverageArea= fields. This prevents the simultaneous use of two sources. Questions about Quantcast:
--Lexein (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I think notability is something that we need to put into consideration as well. Although it isn't very clear how Alexa works, it still provides data that many users find interesting. I would also support editing the template itself instead of adding a general field for technical reasons: adding optional fields for agreed-upon ranking services is easier than having to fill up an empty field in every single article. Regarding the 191 figure, it's for websites that have English Wikipedia articles and have directly-measured, publicly available ranking data on Quantcast. I found many websites that do use Quantcast, but hide the ranking data (Netlog is one example).--OsamaK (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

number of employees

I would like to add number of employees to the template. For example, it would be interesting to note that Google has 54,604 employees, Facebook has 3,976 employees, and Yahoo! has 14,100 employees. However whatever (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are dotcom companies, see {{Infobox dot-com company}} infobox website is for websites that are not also companies. For example, the company google uses {{infobox company}} Google Search uses {{Infobox website}}. Something like Facebook should be replaced with {{Infobox dot-com company}}. Ryan Vesey 20:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Amazon associate links - commercial = yes / no?

If a site has Amazon associate links, is it a commercial site or not? (This issue arose regarding Japanese Movie Database.) JoshuSasori (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that asking whether or not something is commercial is even the best question. See #Business model. Yaris678 (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Quantcast

Jimbo Wales suggested adding a field for Quantcast since it's much more accurate than Alexa, even though it's U.S-centric. The new field can be automatically filled by OKBot for all registered articles.--OsamaK (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. mabdul 11:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but generically. IMHO no single (or few) traffic ranking service should be endorsed by WP or WMF. So the template should have a field for Ranker=, Rank=, RankRegion=. Quantcast is not limited to the U.S. - subscribing "quantifying" entities can be anywhere. --Lexein (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Alexa rankings are notoriously unreliable. Quantcast seems much better, and at least for quantified sites, they are quite good. I also support the concept of using other services if reliable sources say they are more reliable in certain markets. I am unsure that "rankings" is the right way to think about it, rather than simply reporting traffic numbers from reliable sources (and telling which source). The most important thing is accuracy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Alexa from the template. It is widely considered to be unreliable. I don't have any opinion on what it should be replaced with, if anything, but Alexa is about as relevant as AOL these days. — RockMFR 21:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed screenshots

I had never noticed this before, but the screenshots show up initially collapsed and have to be expanded by the user. As most websites are copyrighted, this presents an obvious conflict with NFCC #8 - contextual significance. On one hand, we're saying that the screenshot is so unimportant to the reader's understanding that we can show it initially collapsed and on the other hand, we're saying it's so essential to their understanding that we have to have an image under a claim of fair use. Either the collapsed area needs to be removed or a rule needs to be implemented that screenshots are only included here for public domain sites (US government, etc) or are licensed under an acceptable (e.g. Creative Commons) license. --B (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree. You can't use NFCC and then by default hide it, that's completely against the intent. I can accept having it shown by default and then allowing the user to collapse it, but not the current way above. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree. A screenshot is either important (and thus shown by default) or unimportant (and thus fails WP:NFCC#8 if unfree). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree. — RockMFR 02:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, is it really appropriate to have a screenshot of a website, if the website still exists? There is usually a link to the website so that you can easily check what it looks like yourself. It's not the same as book covers where you might have to buy the book in order to see what it looks like. Besides, websites may change at any time, and the screenshot may be outdated. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Collapsed screenshots do not conflict with WP:NFCC#8. Whether the image is collapsed or not has no bearing on whether the image is "present". A collapsed image also ensures that we are compliant with WP:NFCC#3b. An RFC should probably take place if there is a proposal to eliminate all screenshots from articles. Gobōnobō + c 19:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Alexa

Please could someone please re add alexa 95.141.37.152 (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. -- Taku (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You didn't restore the documentation. I did that just now.
I also don't see any discussion of how it came to be removed. User:RockMFR is who did it, with the edit summary my annual attempt at removing Alexa - not generally considered an accurate/neutral measure of a site's traffic - including it in an infobox implies differently.
I actually support its removal, for the reasons RockMFR stated, and as discussed previously. But I don't think removal should be undertaken without consensus. Likewise, those of you who think it should stay, please say why. —mjb (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Registered users

"Users" (num_users) represents (and links to) registered user, but is displayed only as "users". For facebooks and twitters, there is no scope of confusion. But when it comes to websites like Wikipedia, it is misleading as it can represent both the number of readers and the registered users as well. How about changing it to "Reg. users?···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 01:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Alexa rank increase/decrease arrows

The documentation currently recommends using {{Increase}} and {{Decrease}} for indicating changes in Alexa rank. However, wouldn't it make more sense to use {{IncreaseNegative}} and {{DecreasePositive}}. Lower ranks are generally considered "better" so it'd make sense for the latter versions of the arrows. OKBot seems to do it the latter way, but I've seen people do it the former way, which is why I'm raising the issue here. — daranz [ t ] 20:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It has been like this for a long while but a year or so ago it used {{Increase}} and {{Decrease}}. What on earth is up with that? Yannis A. ✆|☑ 23:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Help desk#Infobox Symbols is about the inconsistent use. I wrote: An up-arrow usually signals good and down-arrow bad. In rankings it's nearly always good to have a lower number and people know this. English also says "move up" in the rankings for getting a better rank, and "move down" for getting a worse. I agree Negative increase or Positive decrease should not be used for rankings. There are other situations where they can be useful. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, any replies should be made there. Thanks all. - thewolfchild 00:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

language parameter

I suggest changing its description from Available language(s) to Languages. It's much shorter and with the same functionality. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: This looks like a reasonable request, but you need to leave a bit more time for others to comment before you make an edit request, as admins are only allowed to make edits to protected pages if those edits have consensus. I suggest that you leave this open for a few days and see what others have to say. It would also be a good idea to post a notice on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects to let them know. If there's a consensus for the change after this has been open for a few days, please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template so that a patrolling admin will notice. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding a ToS parameter

Adding a terms of service parameter (url of the Terms and Conditions page) would be great and allow reuse by services such as tosdr.org --2A01:E35:2EA8:950:C11D:9255:E334:9187 (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

SimilarWeb's traffic counter

As the years go by, Alexa's ranking is becoming less and less relevant due to the way they measure traffic and the relative easiness of tricking their counter. What about adding a section of "Estimated Visits", in addition or instead the Alexa's ranking? For example, both Alexa and SimilarWeb will indicate that Wikipedia's global ranking is "7", but Similar can show that Wiki gets 2.4B hits a month, which is more indicative and relevant. Noamsp (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

current status

This is addressed in threads above, but the responses there don't jibe with its name being current status. Shouldn't it just be "status"? I've seen many pages where this has been abused to update sometimes multiple times a day. (See The Hidden Wiki for one case). By adding "current" don't you then mean short-term? Otherwise what does current add over "status"? --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Believe it or not, the person intent on update-spamming will do so regardless of whether it is "status" or not. Only if it was "status", his or her excuse for update-spamming would have been to "keep pace with the rapid changes of the web". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Add some new labels and data

Hi please can we add location because it should be used to tell you where the headquters is for that website and please add successor and predessesor for a new website that same company launched to succeed there old website. 90.215.3.196 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The fields that you request are only marginally useful. We usually don't have articles of successors and predecessor for websites; everything about these are usually merged into one article, as it the case with Outlook.com. As for the location, I'd let other people comment before acting. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Change the arrows back to what they used to be

I propose that the template is changed back to how it was, with positive green arrows indicating an increase in presense on the net (which in ranking terms, means the number reducing and approaching 1) and negative red arrows to mean decreased presence. In other words, the very opposite of what it is now.

See this and this discussion for details. Yannis A. ✆|☑ 17:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Hello. I am afraid we cannot service your request here. The code that renders this is implemented in a per-article basis. There is a bot that automatically adds or modifies said code but that is not in this template either. You may contact the bot operator after establishing the consensus.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Available language(s) again

The piece of text “Available language(s)” links to natural language. It should link to language instead as websites may very well be available in artifical languages. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. This proposal needs to address the question of "why must we be interested in non-natural languages at all?" Per due weight policy, we cannot add anything like to the article space unless it is proved that the use of artificial languages has global acceptance beyond just a fad.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
P.S. It is important to understand that link to Language article invites programming languages into this parameter. But even if a couple of artificial languages gained global significance and acceptance, you can always include them in the parameter in spite of the fact that they are not natural. After all, in English, we spoke in synecdoche. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. Why does it matter whether artificial languages are a fad? Some websites are available in artificial languages and this template should indicate that fact, whether you like them or not.
  2. The page language is about human languages, not about programming languages.
Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: Nominator eludes answering my use case question, attempting to divert the discussion by asking questions that are already answered. The burden of proof is on the nominator: Wikipedia is not collection of indiscriminate info and I am not making a change to a popular template based on one user's whim to add, say, Klingon to the list of languages of one website. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Because your case use use case question is an irrelevant strawman. It doesn’t matter whether you are interested in artificial languages
The actual question is: are some websites written in artificial languages? The answer is yes, and refusing to present that information while other languages are listed is misleading. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
For example? 188.245.83.59 (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying we have a Klingon Wikipedia or something? If not, what? 188.245.83.59 (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
We have Esperanto, Ido and Interlingua Wikipedia, and one would argue that either separate Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Wikipedias or Serbo-Croatian one fall to the same category. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... We can still add them to the infobox and the link meaning would pass for synecdoche. Anyway, the occurrence frequency isn't that high, e.g. it isn't like one sixth of all websites featured in Wikipedia have several such languages. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure. I have no problems with current infobox; still OP has a point – Internet is about everything, so narrowing the scope of languages to one particular subset may be seen as violation of WP:WEIGHT, which not only requires to give proper weight to most prominent view (natural languages), but also mention notable minority view. This discussion would make sense if link to language article was somehow misleading readers, but in fact even with no regards to Klingon, Elvish, Montenegrin and other purely imaginary languages the language article already gives better context then natural language for the purpose of infobox field. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Believe me, language includes semiotic and non-semiotic languages too. So, he does have a point but I see a counter-point to it too: His proposal increases the range of allowed use far too much beyond need while we can simply accept that exceptions exist. Still, I was thinking about a link that is neither language or natural language. Actually, Internationalization and localization or language localization. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
IMO language localization is best match for now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Advertising

You need to add the "advertising" parameter. YouTube should have "advertising = Google AdSense", right? --David Hedlund (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You sure know how to make eye-catching proposals. But IMHO, that's one hell of a recipe for disaster. Without a source, people might resort to inserting "yes" in it, claiming the "source is the site itself". Well, that would be all nice as long as there is no ambiguous or contentious interpretation of what constitutes an ad. For example, Microsoft Download Center often includes ad-like side banners that lead to software update web page or utility web pages. I don't think these count as ad at all but one might does. Then, there are websites that are riddled with pop-ups, pop-unders and embedded ads while other sites might have one or two select partnership proposals. Then, there are sites that extensively advertise their own products; one can argue that they contain ads because they display banners while others content that the whole website does this, so it is solicited contents as opposed to ad.
After all the abuses of |OS= and |language= and |platform= that I see, I'm afraid I am no longer as open-minded about parameters that can invite a lot of indiscriminate info while their benefit is marginal.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
FWIW I fail to see how particular flavor of advertising is important enough to be mentioned in infobox. These templates were supposed to give a quick and rather comprehensive overview, that would summorize the article; thus the question of what should be excluded is probably even more important then the question what could be included. Although advertising is vital to modern internet, the source of advertising is obviously not, which can be easily gathered from coverage of any given site in general-purpose media.
At the same time, the source of advertising does not really help with explaining the most important qualities of advertising on a given site: quality, quantity, amount of distraction, revenue, etc.
The last but not the least: I second the comment by Codename Lisa – this field will be abused, likely in most cases.
All in all I strongly oppose this suggestion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
People really prefer to read ad-free websites so this suits the picture. --David Hedlund (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I would challenge this claim. People prefer sites that match their intrests best, and if such sites are ad-ridden, they are routinely chosen over ad-free but low-content-quality sites. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I second that. This is the same form of stuff that we avoid in Wikipedia: Systematic bias. People assume something, but instead of turning their unreferenced assumption into WP:SYNTH, they include a certain type of information that projects that assumption and has the same effect as synthesis of existing sources. (It is actually a synthesis of original research.)
We are already having a similar discussion in Template talk:Infobox mobile phone § Unrestricted bootloader, in which a newcomer nominator believes whoever do not include information about unrestricted bootloader in a mobile device article has a COI.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

How can we display global and local ranks with bot update support?

For some websites of major local importance like Rigveda Wiki in Korean it's important to also display local rank (ex. in Korea). Can the bot understand this? I tried something in the RW article, but I doubt the bot (User:OKBot) will like it [2]. Ping bot operator User:OsamaK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

Please replace the template's code with this version from the sandbox (the current version as of this message). Beyond amendments to the code alignment, the changes made are:

  • titlestyle added (to stop name (title) touching template's border; see testcases);
  • caption2: screencaption screenshot_caption as alternative to caption;
  • labelstyle added (to ensure some gap between any long/unwrapped labels and data following them on the same line);
  • {{longitem}}s added to label4, 6, 8, 9, 16 and 18 (linewrap management);
  • label6: sentence-cased link and removed distracting/unnecessary brackets;
  • data6: languages as alternative to language;
  • data7: users as alternative to num_users;
  • nbsp in label10, 12;
  • nowrap in label17;
  • data18: status as alternative to current_status / current status.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. There is absolutely zero benefit in proliferation of parameter aliases. Your proposed changes in CSS style all cause a change in spacing which need more extensive testing. Your testcase does not show everything I must absolutely know. I will probably conduct some tests and let you know.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your attention. I've removed the languages, users and status alternatives from the sandbox, but:
    1. as the current caption is an ambiguous name, I've retained and renamed the screencaption alternative as screenshot_caption (following the pattern of the screenshot_size and screenshot_alt parameters already in place);
    2. added, in the same vein, collapsible_screenshot and screenshot_heading as alternatives to, respectively, the ambiguous collapsible and collapsetext parameter names.
I hope these suggestions are seen more as an acknowledgement that the previous/original names for these parameters need upgrading (perhaps, ultimately, replacing) than as an alias proliferation of absolutely zero benefit.
I've also added a second, generic testcase to the one that was already on the testcases page (English Wikipedia). If it doesn't show everything you want to see, please advise what else needs to be demonstrated.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Sardanaphalus
First, I must say I have been following you recently and you seem to be the one person who definitely knows more HTML and CSS than I do. Now, as for our discussion:
  • I tell you from the experience that no matter how logical and lovely your new alias is, it is going to have an extremely hard time getting adopted, and that has a lot to do with how people use infoboxes. I had a very hard time resisting your |status= suggestion, but I only know too well that I would be its only user. So, a suggestion of an alias only makes sense when there is a huge drive for its practical use. (For example, when a bot is written to populate a parameter on different infoboxes, uniformity makes a lot of sense.) As a side note, the |caption= situation parameter is deliberate. Logos are never supposed to have captions. |logocaption= is only to support insertion of {{ffdc}} and its siblings.
  • My primary concern about your changes to CSS of infobox is that most of them should be sent up to the Module:Infobox. (I have already made some preparations.) This ensures uniformity when two infoboxes are of different type are used in one article. The inconsistency in the space of the caption from the table would have far more visibility than the spacing itself. In addition, some of your changes should be implemented differently. For example, right now, I am conducting experiments about implementing {{longitem}}'s syntax inside |labelstyle=.
  • NBSP is one character in Wikipedia that is used 90% of times zealously and 10% of times when there is actual need. For example, people tend to put an NBSP between 50 and GB while the NBSP must be absent when this item is the sole item in a table cell. When the breaking occurs on very small screens only, let them break! (Ironically, some mobile browsers deliberately ignore NBSP on small displays; hence the effort is wasted.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Update:
1. Change to {{Hidden begin}} applied, only using its |bodystyle= instead of {{center}}.
2. I've updated the sandbox version by merging {{longitem}} into |labelstyle=. You now have your 8px padding to the right without the drawback of cumulative height padding. Please see if I am missing something.
3. Changed sandbox label to "Available in", per Template talk:Infobox software § RfC: natural and programming languages labels
Let me know what you think.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Done No comments, eh? Applying changes to the main infobox. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all the above and I apologize for not responding more promptly. I've been meaning to collect my thoughts about the points you make and will post them here once I make some more distraction-free editing time. For now, though, let the record state that any HTML/CSS knowledge I appear to have is patchy, unsystematic and almost exclusively from here (and mostly not in that order). Thanks again, Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Some responses, at last:
  1. (parameter names) It's a pity if what you report about parameter names is true, as, in effect, people are saying that the first and/or most-used names will be the most suitable. As that can't always be so – especially as and when templates evolve – and, given tools such as bots, should this really be left "to ride"? (I'm regularly reminded, for instance, of inconsistencies in parameter names across {{Navbox}}-based, {{Sidebar}}-based and {{Infobox}} templates.) It sounds as though you'd support mass renamings rather than a gradual encouragement of and/or use of different names..?
  2. (longitem etc) The current default line-spacing/padding for labels and label-like elements does seem to be too wide, so a higher-level longitem-style formatting sounds a good idea. More generally/fundamentally, perhaps a revision of how line-spacing/padding is rescaled when font-sizes are rescaled is what's required..? Whatever the implementation, I agree that what is already required is some tweaking/consistency – as {{Infobox scientist}} has just reminded me. (Separately, the label and data formatting appears to work well here, but they're not quite coordinated.)
  3. (nbsps) Small screen or not, allowing a two or three-letter word like "in" or "of" at the end of a label to wrap impedes the eyes'/brain's scanning one column/entry/etc to the next, so I'd keep those in place. Thanks, though, for the "did you know?" re nbsps and table items – which I didn't know – but why is it a mistake to include it..? (Prevents sortability? Foils calculations?)
Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello again
Congratulations of your TemplateEditor status. Welcome to the club!
  1. Unfortunate as it may be, per my experience, people in Wikipedia seem to copy and paste syntax more often from existing usecases instead of documentation pages. (Well, not all documentation pages copy- and paste-friendly. See {{Ref}} for instance!) The most annoying result for me was encountering cases of |frequently updated= in articles that were created after the deprecation of the parameter. However, if an autopatrolled user had requested your change, I'd certainly have committed it because he himself is more likely to use it more often than a good portion of the entire Wikipedia. (His own comfort for creating a lot of good articles.) Also, as the template becomes smaller and more repetitively-used (like {{Div col}}) the rationale for adding aliases grows. For example, if you find yourself replacing a lot of {{reflist}} with {{notelist}}, then naturally, there is ground for aliases. But for infobox website, do you have such a ground?
  2. I am not sure I follow this one. If you need to study size changes, Firebug and Firefox's intrinsic developer tools help.
  3. Theories are good for theoreticians. Just give me a screen size or a specific content configuration that shows nbsp is required; and in return, I promise I won't contradict you on whether it does or does not impede brain's scanning. (I use Firesizer for on Firefox for testing screen sizes.) And as for "why is it a mistake to include it..?", it is a mistake to make a change whose impact is only manifested in one's imagination. Rule of thumb: Do not change the high-visibility templates only because you think your edit does not hurt. Always assume it hurts and you don't know it. Only change when you can prove it solves a problem.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for your food for thought. I suppose it just doesn't make sense to me to stick with names that are uninformative, especially if they become so as/when templates etc evolve. If aliases are unwelcome, perhaps bots can replace a name if/when replacement is approved. And if "[something]&nbsp;[of/in/...]" in place of "[something] [of/in/...]" hurts, I'm wondering if there's something bigger awry elsewhere...
Apologies about point 2 above, which I should've rephrased before tapping it in. All I mean is that I agree that formatting such as longitem is probably best incorporated at a more fundamental level. (The line-spacing/padding/etc seems to work well in article text, but less so in the smaller font-sizes used in templates etc.)
Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

PopMatters

Hello, could someone be of help in getting a bot installed on the PopMatters Wikipedia page, so the Alexa ranking for their site (it is an online magazine) is automatically updated each month? I've read that such a bot exists on Wikipedia. But I've no idea how to install it on the PopMatters page. Can anyone help? So far I've just been updating it manually every few months. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopMatters

Cheers. Neptune's Trident (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 Requested The bot should start updating your page shortly. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@Czarkoff: The bot seems to be indef'd. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Didn't know that. Well, I don't know another bot with such function. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Implementation of web measurement bot in website infobox

Hello everyone. I would like to suggest the implementation of new web measurement bot into the website infobox, which will show the amount of traffic a particular website receives. This data would be pulled from the SimilarWeb measurement platform, and would automatically update the information each month. Using this data would give more insight than just the current Alexa global ranking. The amount of traffic, in my opinion, is more informative index and will give readers an alternative angle of evaluation for any website that is presented in Wikipedia. Noamsp (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose: The amount of traffic is misleading: one can't compare amounts of traffic from two websites without knowing the type of content, etc. It is also more difficult to compare then Alexa ranks. All in all, it is not informative enough to make it in infobox. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOTSTAT. Without sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context, they are useless. In this case there is no context. It is impossible to appropriately judge a website by its traffic unless a lot more info about it is known. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    Respectfully I do not agree with you. By your logic we should remove Alexa ranking as well as it adds no context. Here is an example, with Alexa ranking Google is #1 in the Global Rankings and Yahoo is #4. With this information what do I know? Only that Google is more popular than Yahoo, but that its a close gap. If we look at the quantity of visits from SimilarWeb we can see that Google gets 18.7 billion visits while Yahoo gets 6.6 billion. What do I know with this information? I know that Google is more popular and I know that it is 3x more popular. Alexa ranking is deceptive in that it hides the affect of scale and can't be compared to other audience measurement metrics. Can you compare Alexa ranking to the number of viewers of the World Cup final? No, but with traffic quantity you would be able to make that comparison. Noamsp (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    Hi. Alexa ranking in Wikipedia is the processed result of comparing traffic statistics between sites and traffic statistics of the same site over period of time, shown as ranking number and trending sign. As such, what you are complaining about is not lack of context, but rather, not being pixie dust. (Your word is "deceptive".) Of course, if you wish to try your hand in removing Alex ratings, your are welcome.
    Now, you propose that we disseminate raw information instead of the processed (in violation of NOTSTAT) because raw information enables the audience to (in your own words) "make the correct comparison". It is analogous to arguing that, instead of giving someone an old dilapidated car, we give him raw material, so he can make himself a luxurious car. You can argue that making the comparison is far easier than manufacturing a car; it doesn't matter. What matters is that giving raw information or material to someone who does not possess the ability to refine and process them is equally wrong and unhelpful. In addition, that person must first agree that the comparison which you favor is right for him, and one the comes naturally to him. I don't. Dmitrij (above) didn't.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    FWIW the goal of infobox is to provide a quick overview of topic. What does figure "24M visitors" say? Is it a lot or just a tiny bit? Is this site popular or not? When you see figure of 6.6 billions of Yahoo visitors, you don't necessarily have any idea about the number of Google visitors (infobox about Google is in another article), so you can't really compare unless you are going to open another article and stare at stats; but if you came for stats, you came to wrong site anyway.
    And another important aspect: people are not very good at memorizing large numbers. Seeing "24M" most people remember "24", so getting to another article in an hour and seeing "16B", reader would not compare 24,000,000 to 16,000,000,000; he would compare 24 to 16.
    Ranking information is much more useful – it provides small, easy to remember and assess numbers, which can be plausibly compared without any knowledge of average traffic figures, and even without any clue about the way the visitors are measured. It is an easily digestible figure that does exactly what it is supposed to do – gives a rough idea without any need in explanation.
    P.S.: ability to compare incomparable is also not an improvement. What exactly are you going to get from comparing number of facebook.com viewers to the number of viewers of the World Cup final? Nothing, because Facebook and World Cup final don't belong to the same set in terms of viewer statistics. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Dear wikipedians thanks for your comments.

First of all I would like to emphasis that my goal is not to replace Alexa's ranking but to complement it with absolute data rather then relative. We all agree that the infobox must provide a quick overview of the topic and that is exactly why I am offering to add the visits data. On other Wikipedia pages with infoboxes, like countries for example, you can find data about population or geographic size that is represented by big numbers. Looking at the page for France, you can find in the infobox that population of France is 66,616,416 people and 640,679 km2 in size, is it a lot or just a tiny bit? Is this country big or small? When you see figure of 66,616,416 people you don't necessary have any idea about population of China, so you can't really compare unless you open an article about China. But if you look closer, you will also see that right after that number it is stated that France has 20th place among the countries by population.

This is what I am suggesting to show: not only a place in list (rating) but also the most comprehensive indicator - the amount of visits. I would also argue that anyone who sees these two numbers together would be able to comprehend more information and not less. Just like the county infobox show both scale and rankings, making it comprehensible to everyone not just professional census surveyors.

Another important subject for discussion is that this bot can show the actual number in different ways. So for example, it could configures to show the current month vs. the previous month statistics which would give even more insight into the trending changes that Alexa provides.

I would also like to point out that many people use Wikipedia as an encyclopedic reference. And the job of an enclyclopedia is to present information. Most people know that they can go to a country page in Wikipedia to pull a population statistic from the infobox. This is a well known use case of the infobox. Why too shouldn't webpages be able to provide similar usage.

My goal here is only to add more insight and enrich the infobox. Part of the Wikipedia process is that it will still be pending a trial period. I kindly request the approval to move forward to the trial period so see a wider reaction. If that reaction is negative I would remove it without prejudice. All I ask is for the opportunity to try because I truly believe this will enhance the Wikipedia experience. Noamsp (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

URL

The template needs more than one URL for alternative websites. It's not simply for other domains! But for networks other than Internet Web. As the example, the TOR network, the I2P and Freenet networks, other services like Gopher, where website can be accessed not by browser. As the example, a TOR website 3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion for the DuckDuckGo.com search engine. So, we need to add additional addresses to the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.36.91 (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi.
Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, and according to our policy, many of these links are unwarranted, unless the article body provides context for them. When it happened, "External links" section is where they must go, not infobox. In addition, Gopher, FTP and many other protocols are not part of the web; hence, there is little point putting them there.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
How about a TOR parameter? I wouldn't think that attribute would make Wikipedia seem like a linkfarm.
Never mind, I just learned that there's a general ban on .onion links. Carry on!
Thanks,
Naugahyde (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Commercial?

I find this to be a needless shorthand, approaching jargon; it is odd that this field is the only one to present its contents as a question, and the question itself is not entirely clear. Consequently, the result of "Yes" or "No" only makes sense assuming that the reader is aware of the full context. It may be easy for most readers to infer that what is meant is whether or not a particular website is run by a commercial enterprise, but this won't always be the case; in my opinion the question-and-answer format is a little too reminiscent of the joke about a person responding to the survey query of "Sex" with "Yes, please". Amusing, but not very enlightening.

Putting a question mark in an infobox arrests the flow of reading, since by definition it signifies the absence of knowledge, or requesting information rather than giving it. It would be easy, and clearer, to instead to have these fields give a little more context, for example such as having the left-hand field read "Commercial/Non-commercial" and the right-hand one read "Commercial" or "Non-commercial" as appropriate. This may seem redundant or bulky, but I think that is a small price to pay for consistency and clarity. I think that such a change would make infoboxes using this template more readable and useful.

--Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

ISSN number field

Hello, I am currently preparing pages on two web magazines dedicated to architecture and design. Both are web-based, so no paper version. Similar cases usually adopt the Infobox website (so neither the infobox journal not the infobox magazine). One of them has an International Standard Serial Number, clearly displayed in homepage, while the other has not (ISSN codes can be also attributed both to paper and web-only publications). Since an online magazine can have an ISSN, do you think the related field should be added to the Infobox website template or should be better for me to apply the infobox magazine to the website that has the ISSN and the Infobox website to the other? This would sound to me a bit strange, since the two magazines are very similar in content and format. Jpboudin (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Parameter logo_size doesn't work

Does not matter if the logo_size parameter is set or default value (250px) is used. If width is specified inside [[File:...]] it works fine. Example—article Stack Overflow:

— andrybak (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, andrybak
The size you have specified in the first edit is full size; in the second, the size specified is thumb size. Naturally, when you specify two sizes, it is obvious that MediaWiki might choose the one that you don't like. In this case, MediaWiki has chosen full and thumb, and ignored 250px.
Have a look at this edit: Revision #647365902. I have specified only one size for the logo through |logo size= and no size for screenshot, so that it renders with the default size.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit, Codename Lisa. The answer to the question "Why logo_size does not work?" is "If one wants to use logo_size parameter, one should use just the filename in logo parameter. One should not use [[File:filename]] in logo parameter with logo_size parameter". The Module:InfoboxImage (as of now) does not use its arguments size, maxsize, sizedefault when [[File:filename]] link is passed into it. Also, this module adds the page to Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images if thumbnail is used ([[File:filename|thumb]]). — andrybak (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Andrybak: Yeah, well, your answer is risky for newcomers. There is always the risk that if I gave this answer, the newcomer would fire back: "What the hell are blabbering about? What's Module? What's InfoboxImage? What's size? What's sizedefault? What's maxsize? I am talking about Infobox Website not InfoboxImage. So, what, are you a dumbass?"
By the way, File:Filename.ext is acceptable too. But when you type [[, all bets are off.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 March 2015

Indent the = sign in the usage. Frap (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Frap: Not done: {{edit template-protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Frap (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexa giving several ranks for the same website

We have an issue at Wikipedia regarding wikipedia.org's Alexa rank. The site overview says 7 but the graph left quite clearly indicates 6, which is supported by the top 500, so the actual rank is completely unclear... meaning we have to indicate both ranks.

I could not find any reference to this issue with moderate research (including this talk page and some exploration at Alexa, including the ranks section of its support). --Chealer (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This is now resolved for wikipedia.org. The rank displayed is now 6, but the inconsistency lasted for more than one week. --Chealer (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Url

There's been some confusion as to how/if the previous description follows WP:EL (and WP:NOT), so I've updated it to explicitly include WP:ELOFFICIAL. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems that some editors would rather not acknowledge WP:ELOFFICIAL nor follow WP:CON.
Please note, CONLOCAL states, "WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants which have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay." --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The change you made was done in order to strengthen your position in the RfC at Talk:The Pirate Bay#RfC - 24 July 2015. Such actions, whether the change is or is not technically correct, is no better than employing sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry in a discussion. Its effect is felt in the 4,435 articles that use this infobox so it is in the realm of WP:FAIT, and such changes are subject to an Arbcom ruling. Since you've now started a discussion on this, and in light of previous edit-warring at The Pirate Bay, I'll ask you to respect both WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO while the discussion is in progress. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Please FOC.
The policies and guidelines apply, correct? CONLOCAL warns us of the lack of consensus on such instructions, correct? It is an improvement to identify the most relevant policies and guidelines, correct? --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 August 2015

The template includes an IP address field that just lists the IP. I created a new template at Template:Ipinfo which links to the ipinfo.io IP address details page for the given IP so that the user can lookup more details, making that field more useful. The ipinfo template could be modified in the future to link to alternative or additional data source, in a similar way to the Template:IPuser template, although that one is probably overkill for the website infobox.

I have updated the sandbox template at Template:Infobox_website/sandbox and added wikipedia's IP to the example so you can see it in action, and you can also see it on the test cases page at Template:Infobox_website/testcases

It looks like only 32 pages currently have the IP field defined, but I think this is useful change all the same.

Ipinfo.io (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Also, {{Ipinfo}} needs cleanup - there is too much significant whitespace. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Apologies - I'm new to editing wikipedia. At the top of this page it says it's OK to use edit template-protected if the change is uncontroversial, and this one seems uncontroversial to me but I'm definitely keen to establish consensus. I added a new section to this talk page to discuss, but nobody has commented yet. Are there any recommended ways of getting people to add to the discussion? I've also cleaned up {{Ipinfo}}. Ipinfo.io (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Not done: There is still no consensus; also, it appears that the template that you intended to be used here, {{Ipinfo}}, has been deleted under WP:CSD#G11 "unambiguous advertising or promotion". It also appears that you are currently blocked for "using Wikipedia for promotion". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Link to additional IP address information

This template includes an IP address field, which represents the IP address of the website. Less than 100 pages that use this template currently include an IP address. I think the field would be more useful if it linked to a source of more information about the IP address, so people could find more details. Making the field more useful could also encourage more people to add IP addresses to their pages.

I have created a new template which links to the ipinfo.io IP address details page for the given IP, and I've also updated the sandbox so you can see it in action on the testcases.

Do others think this would be useful? Should we show additional information in the ipinfo template, or use alternative sources?

Ipinfo.io (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ipinfo.io: It appears, by your username, that you have a conflict of interest here. You appear to want to add a link to a site that you are affiliated with to a template used on a very large number of pages. This would be much less controversial if you instead were proposing to use one of the sites that Wikipedia already links to on IP user pages in the template MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon (which currently are http://whois.domaintools.com/8.8.8.8, http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/8.8.8.8, and http://www.infosniper.net/index.php?ip_address=8.8.8.8 ) --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes I'm affiliated with http://ipinfo.io, and am being transparent by using it as my username. It's a new account, and it would have been easy to choose something different. I believe the IP field is only included on a handful of pages, so if my goal was to get ipinfo on lots of pages this wouldn't be the most efficient approach.
My main proposal is to add a link to an external source, regardless of what that source is. As I said in my previous update, "Should we show additional information in the ipinfo template, or use alternative sources?". I happen to believe that ipinfo.io is the best and most informative source, but I'm obviously biased and would be happy to discuss the benefits of the different sources if you prefer those. Ipinfo.io (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that user name is not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Two web addresses

How do I add two web addresses? Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pickuptha'Musket: Not sure whether you have found a solution already, but you can do this:
| url = {{plainlist|
* {{URL|example.com}}
* {{URL|example.org}}
}}
– nyuszika7h (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Avoid redirect

Please change Uniform resource locator to Uniform Resource Locator. I know edits like this are usually discouraged in articles, but I think it's better if the infobox code doesn't link to a redirect unless necessary. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I was almost certain someone would blindly cite WP:NOTBROKEN without understanding it. This does not involve introducing a piped link, as it is already piped to another name. None of the examples listed there apply in this case. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 March 2016 -> Add new field

I'm requesting to add a Key People field to the template. I have sandboxed it here: [3] and have preview tested it for Twitch.tv. I don't think this will be that controversial. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: adding new fields to infoboxes is often controversial, so I would ask you to discuss it first to see if it has support. If there is no opposition within a few days please reactivate the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I pinged WikiProject Websites. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I’d support the field because it would incorporate information that doesn’t have an obvious home within the current parameters. Is there a way to make it behave better than the Infobox family’s Key people? That is, when there is more than one person, or a description of each person, the Key people’s contents quickly become illegible – and meaningless. Perhaps something that outputs <dl><dt><dd> such as |key-person=|key-person-role=|key-person2=|key-person2-role=? —LLarson (said & done) 16:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
When I looked into this out of the gate I bumped into Template:unbulleted list which is what I ended up using for the demo. Is there something more that could be done? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
My issue with {{Unbulleted list}} is that the markup is so lightweight that it’s easy to miss the boundary between list items. When that template’s used with wikilinked names and job titles (and sometimes references), it can become an inaccessible mess. —LLarson (said & done) 15:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
{{plainlist}} might be better in this case. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I updated the test case with plainlist. Some more feedback if you please. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Seem to work fine with {{plainlist}}, and I suppose the parameter is potentially useful. I'd like to see it documented with strict inclusion criteria, so that it doesn't end up being "paste in the name of everyone from their employee list I found on their website". See also Template:Wbr/doc for how to use {{wbr}}, {{nbsp}}, {{nowrap}} in a set to control line-wrapping carefully. That example should be extrapolated out into a documentation snippet that can be transcluded at will into the documentation of templates like this one, where the situation is likely to arise of {{plainlist}} or {{unbulleted list}} items in infoboxes that may wrap for longer values.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Commercial

I think it's awkward to have a question mark after "Commercial" and propose removing it. — Reinyday, 19:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree The meaning is equally clear without the question mark. —LLarson (said & done) 21:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I updated the sandbox with Reinyday’s proposal; testcases is now live, with and without the question mark. Based on the binary nature of the answer (that is, either “yes”, or “no”), the question mark in “Commercial?” adds nothing but inelegance. Thoughts, everyone? —LLarson (said & done) 17:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Hey old friend 😂😳 I picked up Reinyday’s proposal and have not heard any objections to the idea for over two months (and none since I updated the sandbox last month). Would you consider updating the template for me, please? —LLarson (said & done) 15:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Done It's history — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

oclc parameter

For the sake of building a semantic web and for the proper identification of two websites on the same domain, I propose we add the oclc parameter seen in {{Infobox newspaper}}. Thoughts? —LLarson (said & done) 01:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I added this to the sandbox and made a mockup in testcases. Thank you. —LLarson (said & done) 02:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: this should probably be okay (removed the pipe, since the article is "OCLC", unless a move is also suggested) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: Hi again. I think removing the pipe is fine. I did create with foresight: since OCLC is a potentially opaque abbreviation, I liked how the piped link helped reduce the ambiguity. I’m fine with it either way. —LLarson (said & done) 03:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Done Ping if there are any issues — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

issn parameter

I didn’t realize {{Infobox website}} didn’t already have an |issn= parameter for the ISO’s International Standard Serial Number: I added it to the test cases and sandbox. —LLarson (said & done) 19:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ping if there are issues — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 September 2016

In the line under | label20 = President, please replace data30 with data20.

This mistake is causing numerous pages to wrongly appear in the Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls error-tracking category.

--NSH002 (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Done good catch, thank you! Mlpearc (open channel) 17:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. --NSH002 (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Another one:

Two more typos need correcting. labe52 and labe53 should be replaced by label52 and label53. --NSH002 (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, sorry about these things. I can't explain how those errors arose. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 September 2016

I notice a duplicate of the owner field and it will probably get solved by removing

| label34 = Owner | data34 = {{{owner|}}}

which is just a copy of the original one at "label14". Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 September 2016

The "Launched" row appears twice in the template, once in data49, and then again in data55

Techkid6 (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 September 2016: "Current Status" repeated twice

I've noticed on multiple pages that use this infobox that the "current_status" parameter in the markup in the template is duplicated, causing the "Current status" to be displayed twice in a page's infobox, even if the value was only supplied once. I would assume this affects the majority of the pages using this template, making this a relatively widespread problem. After testing in the sandbox and creating an example on the testcases page, it appears that if "label60" and "data60" are deleted from the markup then the infobox displays correct.

William Casey (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh FFS. @CFCF: I'm fixing this one (the third or fourth!), but can you please do a thorough review? --Izno (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Done Izno (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Everything looks good now. William Casey (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 September 2016: What the hell is going on?

Yet again, there's another duplicate popped up. This time of label3 "Available in" and what should be removed is:

| label48 = [[Internationalization and localization|Available in]]

| data48 = {{{language|}}}

Note: they aren't exactly the same and it seems to be 48 has lesser options so should go.

Why does this keep happening? This is the fourth one which I witnessed. Broader input should be requested or we need someone with template expertise.

Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Done I've reverted to the June/July version. Izno (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 Fixed — these were never duplicates, and it is up to the user to choose which one they want. It's possible to rewrite it so they come under the same line, but for the end-user this has no implications. Your restoral however broke parameters such as founded, which is not the same as launch date. I will take care of issues here, but this isn't really one that needs to be fixed at all. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I can also add that it is impossible to test these things properly, because no article will ever use all the parameters at once. Now I'm making a thorough review of it, after which I will try to strip it down to a less complicated template with fewer parameters. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Question: besides this, previously "owned by" was also seen as a duplicate in my previous edit request. I actually saw it repeated twice in an article, despite only one field being filled. So I recall that in Snopes.com where "owned by" is filled as "Barbara and David P. Mikkelson{{citation needed}}" appeared twice showing this. What was wrong then? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
That was rectified a few days ago, hopefully there are no issues — and I have done a thorough review of the page now and will archive this message. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Default size for screenshot not working

See Village pump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsuser (talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 December 2015

Edit request 8 October 2016

The screenshot size is set to default frameless size I think (although another editor is seeing a different size to myself apparently)? Could it be set to upright=1.15, so that the screenshot is a bit wider then the logo? Also removes the margins on either side of the screenshot. Thanks. Rob984 (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This would make any screenshots that aren't the normal aspect ratio to look weird wouldn't it? Can this not be performed on a per image basis? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Not at all, "upright" still specifies the horizontal width. It's a scaling factor which expands or contracts the image by a factor relative to the user's base width. The user's base width (which is the default size of a "frameless" image) depends on the users preferences, but defaults to 220px. So "upright=1.15" will make the screenshot 250px for users who have not adjusted their preferences. See MOS:IMGSIZE for more information.
Yeah, sure you could set the width of the screenshots on a per image basis. But I think in all cases, a 250px image is more appropriate for the screenshot, regardless of the article / image. It was previous set as 300px for the screenshot, and 250px for the logo. Someone changed both to the user's base size (by default 220px), but I think the screenshot should be a little wider and fill the infobox to show it more clearly.
Also right now I am only able to set a fixed width for the image at the article. This means if a user has a larger base width, the screenshot wont enlarge to suit their preferences. According to MOS:IMGSIZE: "Where absolutely necessary, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) may be specified. This, however, ignores the user's base width setting, so upright=scaling factor is preferred whenever possible".
Rob984 (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually there is one possible scenario when 220px would be more appropriate than 250px—mobile websites. But I'm not sure there are many, if any of these. But a smaller width could be specified for the small number of cases. Note that the fixed width syntax provided by the infobox field will override "upright" if specified. Rob984 (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
|image_size = is DEPRECATED/DISCOURAGED - Mlpearc Public (powwow) 16:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's been so for a long time, per MOS:IMGSIZE. An "upright" field for images, such as "screenshot_upright=", would also be beneficial (and also for the vast majority of infoboxes on Wikipedia). Rob984 (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Need to see sandbox and testcases. Also a question: Why is the logo being set to 250px instead of the default 220px base? The latter would seem to be more appropriate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi.
I think user's preference is inappropriate for infoboxes, for two reasons:
  1. Consensus in the computing area of Wikipedia put 300px as the de facto established size. This consensus was in place even before I made my first edit in Wikipedia.
  2. Free sizing in infoboxes is problematic: Image size changes the size of the infobox as well.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
If we are going to set the image at 300px, I agree we should use a fixed width (we could use the equivalent upright=1.35, but I don't think a user will want the image or the infobox being any larger than 300px). I would prefer upright=1.15 (250px by default), but I'm not going to try to make a case if 300px is established by a wide consensus.
However, I do think the logo should be set to "frameless", at the user's base width. 250px is way too large for many logos (especially square ones), and like SMcCandlish, I don't see any reason to increase this above the base width. MOS:IMGSIZE also advises not to specify a larger or smaller width unless "an exception to this general rule is warranted".
Rob984 (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that explains it better. I think there is strong consensus that 300px is the standard width — decreasing to 220 or 250 is neither a discussed nor positive change. Could anyone write example code for this? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
TemplateEditors are not allowed to make controversial changes without prior consensus. (I am surprised that CFCF did such a thing, although I don't judge. Knowing what is controversial needs experience.) Also, it seems to me that you are trying to apply a global solution to a local problem. But if you are serious about this, the proper way, as SMcCandlish said, is to create test cases for a fair number of representative articles. I suggest you visit Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wiktionary, Yahoo! Search, Google Search and Bing. Investigate how frameless applies to each case, bearing in mind the SVG nature of the logos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codename Lisa (talk • contribs)
I didn't realize I had performed that edit, I thought I had pressed preview only. Thank you for restoring it Codename Lisa. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I have better uses of my time. No logo needs to be larger than 220px, and there is no reason given in this case. If you want to ignore the user's preferences for no reason, that's your choice. Looks like the main issue I was concerned with is resolved at least. Rob984 (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
No reason? How unfair! I gave you two and implicitly a third, had you actually visited the articles to which I linked. That's why this template is protected: Because people have better use of their time and thus prefer hit and run editing. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Partly done: Original request withdrawn by nominator after having been fixed. Discussion can continue about the minor points; just open this back up if/when something needs changing. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 October 2016


Parameter |commercial= is not implemented but is documented. Please implement it.

Also, parameter |advertising= is supposed to take "yes" or "no" as the answer. So I propose adding a question mark at the end of the following line: 

| label45   = [[Online advertising|Advertising]]

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 23:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Sort of. CFCF had deleted this parameter in a recent edit and had damaged five other parameters in process. The sad part is that CFCF's edit had been once reverted by Izno, but CFCF had counter-reverted! Oh-oh! That's not the kind of behavior we expect of a TemplateEditor.
As for the question mark, I will add it shortly.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Results of deep inspection: User:CFCF has made an overwhelming number of changes to this template that do not comply with the practices expected of a TemplateEditor. For such a huge change, there is neither sandbox test nor adequate edit summary, not even corresponding TemplateData. The following parameters have been put decommissioned without proper consideration for the consequences, warning or even an edit summary: |background=, |commercial=, |date_of_launch=, |editor=, |embed=, |logo_caption=, |logocaption=, |reg=, |websitelogo=, |websitename=. As I said above, in response to Izno's revert, CFCF resorted to a counter revert.
@MSGJ: Hi. I'd be much more comfortable to know an admin is looking into this. I trust we don't have grounds for the removal of the rights yet but we do have grounds for an official admin warning.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Codename Lisa — I have already expressed my regrets at not fully testing, while I also expressed that it was implausible to test all the parameters due to the non-existance of any article to utilize them all. The edit in itself should have been very non-controversial, as it was simply a consolidation of two extremely similar templates. So I strongly disagree with your interpretation Codename Lisa, and am fully willing to help restore/provide any functionality. I have unfortunately once again been forced to revert, because the revert you performed managed to destroy far more articles. If we have a discussion of what actually does not work we are more likely to find a good outcome. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 04:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm also in the process of reviewing your comments, and they are incorrect. Those parameters still exist in the template and by all means work. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 04:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have restored functionality of all those parameters Codename Lisa (several of those were still in the code, but had simply been moved around, or been removed by others than me) — I sincerely hope you understand why I have restored boldly, due to the effect on other pages using many of the newer parameters. I also hope that anyone reading this will understand that this is not going to happened again, and I will do a far more thorough review before editing this or any other template again. There is an issue of templates using far too many and incompatible parameters, this edit was intended to be uncontroversial (I see now it was not, for the precise reason that it employed a number of very idiosyncratic template names), and to simplify (I believe it does). But the range of effects that arose in the process of this simplification was unfortunately not my intention, and has been immensely valuable in teaching me just how sensitive templates are. I will in fact venture to say that had I not performed this edit I would never have learned how careful one must be, and that even template editors must be allowed some measure of WP:BOLD (even if much less than in article space, and even if only because one must learn by doing, even if doing means doing things very carefully). I do not believe the articles negatively impacted by these last concerns are more than a handful. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 04:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Also note that this template never took a yes/no answer to Advertising, it is yet to be implemented. I will update the page documentation as soon as I have time (probably this evening). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 05:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@CFCF: Please cease your reckless editing immediately. Your edits still lack transparency. TemplateEditors don't do bold editing, especially when they are reverted twice in the past and their work was poor! Our modus operandi is being slow and cautious, working with peers and sandboxing controversial changes — Especially in highly visible templates like this.
I warn you: Failure to comply will result in being reported to RPP and ANI.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Codename Lisa A sizable number of articles have started using the new parameters introduced over a month ago — if you revert it you're breaking those articles! This breaks a large number of pages, as opposed to none with the current version of the template! Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The full functionality exists in the current iteration, it does not in your revert. I will be forced to once again revert or report you to ANI/RPP. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
A sizable number of articles have started using the new parameters. Yes. That's what happens when templateEditor becomes reckless. The result is a mess in both direction. And why did you make this template a duplicate of {{Infobox dotcom company}} anyway? Wasn't that template enough? —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, let me prove to you that the new and old template have the exact same function. I will spend the next 45 minutes doing so, and then I hope we can leave this discussion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Not enough. I also need to peer-review your changes beforehand. And I want to know what you are doing and why you are doing it. What's the big idea? —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

What I have done is merged two template with not only similar but the essentially the same functionality. This helps streamline things for editors, and makes both templates easier to keep up to date. The edit is in essence not controversial because: it removes no functionality from either template, and it does not add the need to fill in any more parameters. I do agree that my original implementation was poor, and I have repeatedly apologized for it.

The two templates in question are: Template:Infobox website & Template:Infobox dot-com company The practical choice between these is entirely arbitrary, because there is very little distinction between the usage. In addition prominent examples of dotcom companies (Google etc.) use the Template:Infobox company.

"Dot-com company" is less of a part of the vernacular than it was 10 years ago, and since we do not have a Template:Infobox non-profit website or Template:Infobox personal website this template is neutered by not including No. employees or revenue etc. (parameters which apply to non-profit websites as well as companies, so the dot-com flag is inappropriate).

Combining the functionality of these templates should not effect any current use of the template. Here is where I went wrong, because I was unable to foresee all the issues. I can only say it was very difficult to create a test-case which included all the possible mechanics in the template, so if you are willing to peer-review the changes I will be very happy. Most issues were fixed within a very short period, and only these rare issues have persisted. Just a quick summary of why the merge is a net positive:

  • Decreased maintenance work
  • Simplified process of requesting to added/new functionality
  • Easier for editors to choose a template that works in most situations, hence less work required changing from one to the other
  • Makes it easier to update the templates when/if we get support for Wikidata-integration

Please see the following test-cases Template:Infobox website/testcases/Template:Infobox dot-com company/testcases
Will ping when I've finished the test-cases
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Ping Codename Lisa, both testcases should show all the parameters now. I have checked and all the alternative parameter names from both templates should be included in the sandbox version — so nothing should be lost.
The only parameter that should see a slight change is company_type and website_type. type in the sandbox is the same as website type, while in infobox dot-com company type was the non-default parameter name for company type. I did a review and could find no examples of where type had been use in place of company_type. If this is an issue obstructing merge I am willing to manually fix all the usages to company_type. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@CFCF: Thanks a bunch. I love it when we don't fight and try to do things the reliable proven way! I'll find something to eat and then get cracking on the peer-review. Then, shoulder to shoulder, we will go meet the trouble. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Peer review completed. Looks like you got it all this time. Well done. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Right I've gone ahead with the merge :). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

IP address field

This template has a field for a site's IP address: this is now amazingly out of date and essentially meaningless. IP addresses of websites change all the time: frequently, a single site has multiple A records associated with it, often via a CNAME, the use of HTTP redirects can lead to the address of the server serving the root HTML page being different from the server that took the initial HTTP connection, and, after the delivery of the root HTML page, the content of modern webpages generally loads from a large number of endpoints at once, including CDNs. I propose that we delete this field, unless there is evidence that it still has a useful purpose. -- The Anome (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It goes without saying that the field should only be used when there is a static, relatively stable IP address associated to the site — preferably backed by reliable sources. The field is both useful and put in use on a number of articles, albeit not many — but that it is used rarely is not an argument to remove it. It is especially relevant where DNS-level censorship exists and there is a known official IP address associated with a site. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you give an example of this where it might actually be useful to someone? If someone is bothered enough to do DNS blocking, IP blocking is just as easy to do. -- The Anome (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Now let's not pretend this is about hypotheticals, and let's not forget that Wikipedia isn't only used by people in western democracies. Certain states profusely deploy DNS-blocking, and while they also use IP-blocking it is far less pervasive. The EFF does significant work to map these phenomena, but by definition it is difficult to get stats from countries with significant blocks in place. If we can aid as much as one person in accessing information that is more than enough reason to use the field. However, I'd be happy to explain in the documentation that this is for these specific use cases. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that basically an invocation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? --Izno (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Huh? Obviously not. It is clearly a utility argument. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
You know, I find in Wikipedia, it is very difficult to remove something just because it is not useful, unless you can demonstrate there is a harm in it. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The only harm would be deliberate misuse adding this to sites like google.com or yahoo.com, where there is no single static IP-address available. As for righting great wrongs, the fact that it purports to do some good is not an argument against using it — while on its own it isn't an argument for it. However when sites have official publicized IP-addresses, like a number of DNS-servers have: notably 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 for Google DNS it is clearly useful to provide this information in the infobox. I am not entirely sure which articles use this parameter, to understand where it is useful it may be good to show this. Otherwise as Fleetcommand says, it seems reasonable to demand evidence of harm before removing it. So far there is not even the suggestion of potential harm, merely a statement that it is useless (for you). That isn't enough… Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The onus of proof for keeping a feature lies on its proposers. I still haven't seen one single actual use of this parameter that uses it to provide encylopedic information that is backed up by reliable, third-party sources, and I'm still waiting for those who advocate keeping this field to provide it. Google DNS is not such a case: it's not a website. As for justification: since Wikipedia is not a vehicle for collating WP:INDISCRIMINATE information, any non-notable uses of the field should be removed; and any field which is not used for any encyclopedic purpose is just cruft that should be removed as not furthering Wikipedia's mission. As for harm: I can name at least one, trivial, harm. The only use of this field I've seen was to provide an IP for fuckingmachines.com on the infobox for that site. A quick DNS dig reveals that it was wrong. That's a piece of bogus information on Wikipedia. If something does even the most trivial harm, but no actual policy-compliant good, that's justification enough to remove it. -- The Anome (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I am afraid I have to disagree with you here. Metadata of something is never indiscriminate. (Try (not) having due weight though.) And a WhoIs lookup is always from a third-party source not interested in the matter. And the onus of keeping a feature is definitely not with the purposer as far as WP:EDITCONSENSUS goes; once a feature is added and was not immediately contested, it is assumed to have weak consensus in its favor that can be overturned by explicit consensus to remove. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Per Carl. With the wording strengthened in the template documentation to highlight that this is only to be used if the IP is the regular mode of access for the site, rather than DNS, and that this is vanishingly rare. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Can you give an example of this "vanishingly rare" practice? I can't think of a single example. Also, on a technical point, Whois lookups do not give IP addresses. Perhaps you're thinking of DNS queries via a tool such as dig? If so, the lookup is not WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
That you cannot come up with examples is really not an argument. I previously asked if there was a way to see what articles actually use this functionality, and so far there hasn't been an answer. I have the examples of a number of DNS services that exist, and even though that benefit is small it is still infinitely greater than the harm from a hypothetical case of misuse. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Also clarify why a DNS-query to an official DNS server does not abide by WP:RS? I understand that it may not indicate that this is the stable IP, but there is no reason why it constitutes WP:OR if the source is given. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's really strange that so many people are vigorously defending the existence of this field in the template, without a single example of a valid use. DNS services, for which stable IP addresses are actually useful and reported by WP:RS, are not websites, and so this field does not apply to them. IP addresses change all the time in modern web deployments, and many sites are hosted in such a way that accessing the site by just the IP address is not going to be useful at all. Most of all, it's a redundant feature: if you want a fresh, valid DNS lookup, your browser will supply one for you, in a far more reliable way than looking it up on Wikipedia. And even if you are subject to DNS spoofing or interception, getting the IP address from Wikipedia is unlikely to be helpful, as IP addresses can be spoofed just as easily as DNS lookups. -- The Anome (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

TOR urls in the url field

There are some sites (e.g. DuckDuckGo) where a text Onion url has been added to the url field in addition to the official link. This would appear to violate the definition of the field as it calls for an WP:ELOFFICIAL link. Also WP:ELMINOFFICIAL and WP:ELNO #7. Onion links are also in the blacklist[4]. Now, these are not links but text, since the blacklist will normally prevent adding an actual link. But, this appears to be a method of circumventing the blacklist as well as violating the definition of the field. Question is, are these valid uses of the infobox? I think not. Objective3000 (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi.
Since it is clearly a circumvention of what is forbidden, it is forbidden. And such extraneous info disrupts the field's machine readability.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: |client os=

Hi.

Lots of websites these days have native client apps. Off the top of my head: Google.com, Bing.com, Stack Overflow, Pastebin.com, OneDrive, Google Drive, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, DropBox, Mega.co.nz, Google Translate, Bing Translator, etc.

So, is it a good idea to add a |client OS= to the infobox? The label would read: "Client app runs on".

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Alexa

What does IncreaseNegative Negative increase and DecreasePositive Positive decrease mean? How can increase be negative and vice versa?--Mika1h (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Yes, indeed the increase can be negative. For example, in a car race, the best becomes the first. The worse-performing the racer, the higher ranking he (or she?) gets.
In Alexa, the top website is #1.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Is Alexa even accurate nowadays (if it ever was)? Trivialist (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

... as long as it isn't wildly inaccurate and there isn't a better replacement...
What made you ask this question? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 04:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 May 2017

Please change the sizedefault= value in the image= switch to 64px per the documentation. If it is supposed to be 250px then the documentation needs to be changed. However, most logos do not look good at that size and become very distorted. Majora (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: @Majora: 64px is not correct; the documentation should be corrected. Also, see #Edit request 8 October 2016. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: |native_name=

There should be a "native_name" parameter to show the native name of the website if the website it not in English. --Yejianfei (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello
Why do you think the current name parameter is holding or should hold non-native name in the first place?
That said, "native name" is a euphemism for "official name", which, in this context is a policy taboo in Wikipedia. We write the most common name instead. Other names, if in possession of due weight, are placed in the lead or the main prose.
Of coure, if you feel I am totally missing the point (although I don't see how), an example or two might help bringing light to the matter.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 Feb 2018 - please remove slogan

Would you please remove "slogan" from the infobox? We have removed this from the org infobox (see Template_talk:Infobox_organization#Mission,_slogan and it has never been in the company infobox as this is just marketing crap. Thx Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"offices" and "areas" parameters

If these (and any other) fields are deprecated, could someone please delete them from the Usage section? —Ringbang (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree this would be helpful. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: political=

It's been pointed out that Google News scrapes the political= field of Infobox newspapers. But various media websites are not affiliated with print newspapers, and thus don't get a flag next to their name.

Says WIRED writer Louise Matsakis, 16 March 2018:

Scraping Wikipedia content has already had unintended effects in other parts of the web. Consider what happens when you search a number of news outlets on Google. Several daily US newspapers in major metropolitan areas, like the Chicago Tribune and New York Daily News, are presented as having "political alignments." The search results describe the former as conservative, and the latter as centrist. But if you search for an openly partisan outlet, like Breitbart, no political alignment shows up, because Wikipedia's editors haven't added one to its entry. Because the information lives on Google, independent from its source, it's not always apparent why a piece of information did or didn't end up in a search result.

Can we add this field? -- Zanimum (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will add this field on Friday. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Usage guidelines

I stumbled upon this template while trying to research the infobox dot-com company, its predecessor. I'm curious - would it be useful to have usage guidelines for when to use this versus infobox company? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_website/Archive_2&oldid=1130258368"