This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Excluding the ParserFunctions extension, what other extensions does Infobox Website use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.227.75 ( talk) 04:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

An infobox for websites is a good idea, but this one (which still doesn't seem to be in use except for one entry for a non-notable blog that is facing VfD) needs a lot of work. I don't think the "Hosted by" field is particularly notable; the really large major sites will have their own servers and not be "hosted by" anybody, and in the case of smaller sites that actually are hosted by a hosting provider or ISP, is that fact really relevant to the site? It may not always be possible to determine this, given that the DNS servers shown in "whois" may be hosted elsewhere from the site itself, or may be aliases in "vanity domains" to hide the actual host. Of course, some sites may be hosted in subdirectories or subdomains of the host's domain (though most of these are probably not notable enough to get a WP article anyway) and thus show their host obviously, but in that case there's no need to state it separately.

Meanwhile, there are probably a lot of other, more notable, facts about a site that do deserve fields in the template, like, who actually owns it, are they a for-profit company, nonprofit organization, individual, loosely-defined group, or whatever? Is the site open to the public or private; is there the ability to register and gain a username on it? Can users post or edit content, or is the content entirely provided by the site maintainer(s)? *Dan* 15:10, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Would adding Category:Website help?

type should have some pre-approved list (taxonomy)

reg isn't currently accepted by the template; and it's not clear from the example, what this is for... -- Robocoder ( talk | contribs) 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'll change that. I'm also thinking of creating a Wikiproject for websites, aka a bunch of articles about websites (not all websites - just stuff like MSN and Forbes - what does everyone think?

To keep everything simple, some values have only multiple choice:
Commercial Yes / No answers only please
Type of site eg Wiki, Forum, e-Shop, comparison site etc.
Registration Required / Optional / No answers only please.

I'm not sure the "Commercial" field can actually get a definitive yes/no answer in the case of many sites. While there are some sites that are definitive one way or the other (a corporate for-profit site on the one hand, and a site run by an IRS-accredited nonprofit organization for charitable purposes on the other), quite a few sites are in the huge grey area in between. What do you call a site run by an individual mostly for fun, but containing some Google ads or affiliate links that bring in a little bit of money? What about a site run by a for-profit corporation, but as a public service with no ads or other direct revenue? A site run by a nonprofit organization as a fundraiser, offering merchandise and ads? It's not as clearcut a thing as you may think. And, to my purist sensibilities, anything in a .com domain is intrinsicly purporting to be commercial by its very address, and it rankles me to classify it as "noncommercial". *Dan T.* 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove "Commercial". I find it ambiguous for the reasons Dtobias gives. The alternative is to identify the content as one or more of public service information/announcement, company/organization info, event information, product info, service info, adware, e-commerce, self-promotion, etc -- which becomes difficult to maintain. -- Robocoder ( talk | contribs) 17:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

{{ editprotected}}

I've added a non-compulsory field titled, "Alexa Rank". This field isn't compulsory, so I didn't see any harm in adding it to the template - since anyone who does not wish to use it, doesn't have to. It may give a broad view of the notability of the website's popularity based on Alexa status. However, if the creator/admins feel that this addition is not relevant, feel free to delete it - just trying to help out :) User:Felix Felicis ( talk | contribs) 16:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I think having an Alexa parameter is a terrible idea. Their metrics are so skewed it's not worthwhile for anything remotely formal (such as an encyclopedia). Good try though. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the "alexa" parameter of this template be removed. As noted here, there is controversy surrounding the reliability, validity, and overall utility of Alexa rankings. Moreover, Alexa rankings are subject to frequent and substantial change, so there's also the question of whether it's worthwhile to spend time and effort in keeping the information up-to-date. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 22:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In light of the fact that no one has commented in 10 days, and in lieu of making the change myself under the principle that silence equals consent, I've added an {{ editprotected}} tag to invite the input of another admin. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if the Alexa rank may be criticised for being partly biased, I think it's still worthy because it give a rough idea of how popular a website is and Alexa Internet is nearly the only company to provide such data. Plus the fact the name Alexa in the infobox is linked to the article, so people can easily find the section you cite. So, eventually, I think we should keep it. 16@r ( talk) 17:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the problem of updating? I've seen the Alexa ranks of websites change by more than 100% (by approximately 30000 in the case of the website I have in mind - iCasualties.org) in about a week. Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to see the Alexa parameter removed. Happy‑ melon 11:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case Black Falcon, a range should be given instead of trying to give the precise rank (which indeed would be quasi-impossible because as you said, it changes very permanently). But I still think we should keep it because it allow readers to very quickly make an idea about the popularity of a website (for example the website you're talking about has never reach the top 10,000). 16@r ( talk) 12:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What period of time do you think the range should reflect (e.g. a specific month or year, the entire history of the website, or a shorter period of time)? How should one decide between these intervals? – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's like any other information on Wikipedia, the more it's up to date, the better it is. Since websites populatiry follow a " long tail distribution", I think the period of time will come naturally. Do you have an example of a specific website for which the rank could be a problem? 16@r ( talk) 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, since editing the iCasualties.org article is how I initially found out that the Alexa rank had been added to this infobox, let's take a look at that.

• The current traffic rank is 54122.
• During the past seven days, the website's rank has declined from about 52000 to 60000.
• In the past month, its rank has ranged from about 47000 to 63000.
• A look at the graph for the past three months reveals that the website's rank has mostly stayed in the 45000 to 65000 range, but has experienced significant fluctuations over time; that is, there is no stable trend of increasing or decreasing rank.
• In the past six months, it has ranked in the 40000 to 65000 range.
• In the past three years, it has ranked in the 10000 to 65000 range; although there is a general pattern of decline, it is by no means steady.

– Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 18:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case, the most important thing is the website has always had a 5 figures rank. And if you look at the page history, the article is approximately updated twice a month, so here, I would state the average rank for the last month (~50,000) and also provide a link to the Alexa page so people interested in the website would be able to find out more about its rank history. As for the update rate, the more an article is updated (for example: YouTube), the more its rank will be accurate and up to date. But it's no use to edit an article about a website everyday just to update the rank, it should be updated occasionally (at the same update rate than its page history, that's what I mean when I said "naturally"). 16@r ( talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough... A part of me still objects to the inclusion of the Alexa rank (for reasons related to its reliability and validity), but I can see the arguments for usefulness. If nothing else, it is a prominent and commonly-used measure of web traffic. I have added the parameter here, along with a hidden comment regarding updating. Thanks, Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 23:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the alexa parameter has gone. What happened? I agree that the Alexa rank gives a rough idea of the popularity of the website. Nearly every website is remotely close to the popularity of, say, Wikipedia or YouTube and giving some concrete number, if not terribly reliable, is probably a good idea. It would be better if we state, for example, the website is popular among teenagers in so-and-so regions with a reliable source, but that's usually not possible. Again, Alexa can be a good alternative to this. Of course, there is an issue of changing nature of the rank, but that's not a unique issue. We always have to deal with issues like the change in the population in a geographic article. The ranking isn't anything different. -- Taku ( talk) 10:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

DELETE not needed(what says a visit-count about a website?) and is not corretly collected(only Microsoft Internet Explorer user with that toolbar). -- 87.78.22.4 ( talk) 17:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The point of noting the alex rank is, as discussed above, to give some rough idea of the popularity of the website. You do agree that the popularity is one of the most important attributes of the website, right? Also, its methodology in collecting data might not be perfect, but is there any better alternative that you can think of? -- Taku ( talk) 01:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Alexa is no source because it is full of failure/manipulation by design or by people.-- 87.78.23.227 ( talk) 00:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles using the old syntax will be automatically flagged with {{ cleanup-infobox-transclusion|Infobox Website}}. The notice will disappear once the article has been updated with the correct syntax. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

oh, yes, please note that I have done this for only the parameters that have been changed, not for any of the added optional parameters. They would presumably be taken care of when the template is updated. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you have to do to remove it? It is so ugly... ughhh!!! [1] Ansell 06:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be a less ugly/more functional proposal just to use the category? The category seems to be the logical way for someone to find the offending pages anyway, so why make the innocent reader see the editors temporary problem? Ansell 06:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Infact, a bot could change all of the pages, right?? Which begs the question as to why a user has to see the very cryptic message.. Ansell 06:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please explain what all the fields are for? The example is good, but doesn't use all of the fields. I'm assuming the following:

• name = The name of the website
• logo = the site's logo (image)
• screenshot = a view of a typical page/the homepage of the site (image)
• caption = the caption for the screenshot?
• url = location of the site
• commercial = is the site a commercial venture (makes money somehow)
• type = wiki-linked type for the site: Online shop, Internet radio, etc
• registration = is registration required to use this site?
• owner = Who owns the site (probably a group or corporation
• author = Who provides content for the site?
• launch date = when it was launched. This might be only the year, or it could be the date: dd/mm/yyyy
• current status = ?? Active, inactive, or off the web
• revenue = how much money they make annually

Daev 17:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Can all this and more be explained on the template page? I am not sure what to put for several of the categories above. Snowman 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

See IMDb. There the homepage is not used as screenshot. Should it be changed? -- Steinninn 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Miniclip and figure out what the new template is complaining about. Somebody changed the template, and now there's a big error box. I don't see anything wrong with the template invocation; according to the documentation for the template, all the required parameters are present and all the optional parameters are still supported.

Incidentally, in the error box, "deprecated" is spelled wrong. Thanks. -- John Nagle 18:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Speed Demos Archive also has this problem. It looks to me like it has the right syntax, but the error still appears. What gives? Fieari 22:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, found the problem. I needed to change "websitename" to just "name". Fieari 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clear documentation of the changes in this template are needed , then updating the fields is easy. ATM it's guesswork. Rich Farmbrough, 10:13 30 September 2006 (GMT).

It seems that there is a slight dispute over whether or not favicons should be included as part of the infobox.

• 21:10, 2 November 2006 RockMFR (Talk | contribs) (favicons are pointless and not fair use)
• 22:12, 31 October 2006 CyberSkull (Talk | contribs) (put favicon back)
• 01:36, 31 October 2006 Rory096 (Talk | contribs) (remove favicon. it's asking for an additional fair use image that provides little to no information about the content, and is completely unnecessary.)

Personally I feel that favicons should be included, but discussion is definatley needed. Kc4 22:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. I initially added them as its easier to get a favicon than a good website logo to be used in the infobox. Most website logos I've seen have been built specifically to be used in a page layout, really making them useless on their own. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of favicons in this template was briefly discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use#Website_favicons. Favicons do not add any real content to the article and do not help to identify the subject. --- RockMFR 01:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And it would really be helpful if you would stop removing the orphan templates temporarily and discuss this. --- RockMFR 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think including a favicon would be fine if no better logo can be found. — Remember the dot ( t) 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, although I couldn't just put the link to the favicon in the logo parameter? In my opinion, I think that they are unnecessary if a suitable logo is there. -- Jatkins 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox Software#Language 16@r 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would do this myself but the template seems to be fully protected. Anyway, I think the "of site" part of the 'current status' parameter is a little redundant and just makes the infobox look awkward having so many more words than the other parameters. I'm sure just having "Current status" is enough. Axem Titanium 20:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Seems needlessly verbose. --  Satori Son 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with above proposal. --- RockMFR 06:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Commercial?" is very odd. I would prefer to if only "Commercial" was used. Lord Metroid 20:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with above proposal. Use of a question mark seems appropriate. --- RockMFR 06:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made the first requested edit, but not the second. J Di ^talk 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add:

no:Mal:Infoboks nettsted -- Lipothymia 02:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Done! :) Cbrown1023 22:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

{{ editprotected}}

Please add:

mk:Шаблон:Инфокутија вебсајт -- Guitardemon666 23:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. J Di  ^talk 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The location parameter doesn't show up (See Wikipedia and LyricWiki). Is it supposed to? Was this parameter deleted for some reason? -- Will Mak 050389 19:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It would appear so... but I can't see any discussion about it. Anyone know what happened? – Quoth 07:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that people using this template format their dates in yyyy-mm-dd format to avoid confusion.

Also, in case it wasn't already obvious, it's a good idea to use the thumb parameter in the copyright and logo images. -- Powerlord 16:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

in order to make this infobox use the same format as the majority of other infoboxes, I would like to request the following edit be made to the opening lines of code:

CURRENTLY READS:

{| class="infobox borderless" style="align: right; font-size: 90%; text-align: left; width: 24em;" summary="Template:Infobox Website"
 |+ style="font-size: 125%; vertical-align: middle;" |'''{{{websitename|{{{name}}}}}}'''
 {{#if:{{{websitelogo|{{{logo|}}}}}}|<tr><td colspan="2" style="text-align: center;">{{{websitelogo|{{{logo}}}}}}</td></tr>|}}
<!---->{{#if:{{{screenshot|}}}|<tr><td colspan="2" style="text-align: center; border: 0px solid #aaaaaa">{{{screenshot}}}{{#if:{{{caption|}}}|<br /><span style="font-size: smaller;">{{{caption}}}</span>|}}}}

NEW FORMAT:

{| class="infobox borderless" style="align: right; font-size: 90%; text-align: left; width: 24em;" summary="Template:Infobox Website" 
 |-
 | colspan="2" style="text-align: center; font-size: 125%; vertical-align: middle;" |'''{{{websitename|{{{name}}}}}}'''
 |-
{{#if:{{{websitelogo|{{{logo|}}}}}}|<tr><td colspan="2" style="text-align: center;">{{{websitelogo|{{{logo}}}}}}</td></tr>|}}
<!---->{{#if:{{{screenshot|}}}|<tr><td colspan="2" style="text-align: center; border: 0px solid #aaaaaa">{{{screenshot}}}{{#if:{{{caption|}}}|<br /><span style="font-size: smaller;">{{{caption}}}</span>|}}}}

Regards, DJR ( T) 11:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does only the "Available Languages" parameter have a colon after it and none of the others do? Grhs126student talk 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

{{ editprotected}}

Template removed, addition is disputed. Cbrown1023 talk 14:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

{{{Name}}} should be placed within the infobox border, not above it. That appears to be the current standard for all infoboxes. Suggested code change:

{| class="infobox borderless" style="align: right; font-size: 90%; text-align: left; width: 24em;" summary="Template:Infobox Website"
| colspan="2" style="text-align: center; font-size: 125%;" | '''{{{websitename|{{{name}}}}}}'''

Everything after the code is unchanged. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 21:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This change looks a bit odd without the background color that is often used in infoboxes. --- RockMFR 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Template:Infobox software2 uses the style I am suggesting without a colored background. I think it looks just fine. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

{{ editprotected}} Please add ru:Шаблон:Карточка сайта. ~ kintup 09:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done Adambro 16:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

{{ editprotected}}

Please add sl:Template:Infobox Website. -- AndrejJ 19:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ck lostsword• T• C 15:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Is commercial referring to nonprofit and for-profit? Commercial is ambiguous, it could mean "business to business" or "incorporated". -- Voidvector 17:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If the content of a website is available for a fee but the fee goes to a non-profit organization, is that commercial or not? See, for example, JSTOR. Nurg ( talk) 21:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

{{ editprotected}}

It was sugested to me that since several months have passed, I should request this again.

{{{Name}}} should be placed within the infobox border instead of above it. Currently, the text looks as if it is not part of the infobox when there is a line or two of wrapping text above it. Instead, it blends into that text, visually pulling it away from the infobox.

Suggested code change:

{| class="infobox borderless" style="align: right; font-size: 90%; text-align: left; width: 24em;" summary="Template:Infobox Website"
| colspan="2" style="text-align: center; font-size: 125%;" | '''{{{websitename|{{{name}}}}}}'''

Code after these lines (beginning with line 4 that contains the first "#if" statement) are unchanged. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. While I was in there, I cleaned up the code as well. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 22:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

{{ editprotected}} Could someone please add a "slogan" parameter, for consistency with {{ Infobox Company}}? You may do this by adding the following text right underneath the "URL" part: {{#if:{{{slogan|}}} | <tr class="note"><th style="text-align:right; padding-right:0.75em;">[[Slogan]]</th><td>{{{slogan}}}<!----></td></tr>}}
Thanks! Melsaran ( talk) 14:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a parameter for the Alexa rank would be handy as well. Something like: {{#if:{{{alexa|}}} | <tr class="note"><th style="text-align:right; padding-right:0.75em;">[[Alexa Internet|Alexa]] rank</th><td>{{{alexa}}}<!----></td></tr>}}
Melsaran ( talk) 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

{{ editprotected}} I think it would be intersting to add a field "advert" allowing to say if the website displays some advertisment. The value could be "no" and more if it's yes (like specifying Google Ads). 16@r ( talk) 13:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 Not done - not sure that's needed. Some consensus would certainly be needed first. Neil  ☎ 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this template protected, it doesn't seem to be in consistence with protection policy, and there's no information concerning the full protection of it? Isn't it exaggerating a bit to protect it fully from editing, when official policy of Wikipedia is not to endorse page versions? -- Thrane ( talk) 20:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know, but you can request unprotection at WP:RPP. - Koweja ( talk) 01:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

{{ editprotected}}

I would like to suggest to add a parameter allowing to make the potential screenshot collapsible. I already did this for {{ infobox software}}. The purpose of collapsing a screeshot is to avoid to have to scroll many times before being able to access any information of the infobox (see for example MediaWiki). This feature would be particularly useful for infoboxen displaying loooooooooooong screenshot (like English Wikipedia for example). 16@r ( talk) 02:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a complicated edit that took you a couple tries on infobox software. Can you copy this template to a temporary area ( Template:Infobox Website/temp perhaps) and make the edits there, and test them to make sure they're correct? Then I can just copy from there. Also, do you have an example of where the collapsible is being used? Thanks. — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea, but please test this thoroughly and restore the editprotected tag with a description of exactly what code needs to be added or changed. Saying "copy from this userpage" is ideal :D Happy‑ melon 13:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You can now copy the code of the sandbox (see also the testcases). 16@r ( talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑ melon 19:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)