Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox website

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.19.25.230 (talk) at 09:26, 13 November 2018 (→‎AlexaRank: it's conventional to show improvements as upwards and deteriorations as downwards, in keeping with tables and charts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposal: Add SimilarWeb

If the Alexa parameter is useful (debated before), then SimilarWeb should be added (suggested before). My reasons:

  1. Including Alexa but not its major competitor is odd.
  2. Alexa-style services are only broadly accurate. Including more sources gives a reader a better idea of the range of estimates of a site's traffic.
  3. Alexa provides only site rank but not site traffic. SimilarWeb provides both. Site rank is useless for an unfamiliar reader. Providing site traffic gives some idea of what "site rank" means. (That said, sites like Rank2Traffic exist that convert Alexa rank to an estimated sessions curve].)
  4. Alexa ranks SimilarWeb higher than itself: SimilarWeb at 1,654, Alexa at 1,942. Oddly enough, SimilarWeb does the reverse: Alexa at 6,559, SimilarWeb at 9,467. By Alexa's metric alone, SimilarWeb has more influence.

I'd suggest adding Quantcast, but their numbers are localized (Google gets 211 million "U.S. monthly people") and therefore incomparable to Alexa or SimilarWeb. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: I have prepared a modified version at Template:Infobox website/sandbox. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CFC: Relevant: https://moz.com/rand/traffic-prediction-accuracy-12-metrics-compete-alexa-similarweb/ FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89: @Codename Lisa: this has received no response FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: @Frietjes: any thoughts? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of response, FuzzyCatPotato, you may want to consider opening a Request for Comment (RfC), though I am not sure if that is necessarily appropriate at this time. You can ask its talk page about whether it is. If you do open one, I suspect that {{rfc|tech}} would be the appropriate category. Alternatively, you can discuss it at the village pump or WikiProject Infoboxes, both of which have more page watchers. I have no comment on your proposal, but you seem to have been met with silence, so I might as well offer what I can to help. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Duplicate parameters not flagged

{{Infobox website |industry = I am working on cleaning up the errors in Category:Pages using infobox website with unknown parameters. Many are caused by |slogan= which has been removed, and |headquarters= which may have existed in "Infobox dot-com company" but now needs to be |location=. I think there are some others also. But this template does not warn if the same parameter is used twice; the second value is used and if it is blank there is no indication of a problem. Frietjes, could you add the common warning for this condition here. Thanks, it would help me i sorting out the 1800 articles with some error from this template. MB 22:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that |location= and |location_city= are both displayed as Headquarters, while |headquarters= is not recognized. Maybe |headquarters= should be added as a third variant for the headquarters field. MB 22:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MB, I made some changes to mirror the functionality of {{infobox company}}. due to these changes, we need to check any changes to the output. you can find the various tracking categories in the Tracking categories section. I split them up based on if they (a) require modifications to the usage or (b) just require checking. it may take some time for the categories to fill up. once they are filled and everything in the 'non-critical' section has been checked, we can remove those checks and tracking categories. let me know if you seen any serious problems. Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki automatically adds Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls if any template is called with the same parameter name assigned more than once. I don't think it's possible for a template to detect this and add its own tracking category like Category:Pages using infobox website with duplicate arguments. Previewing the page will show a MediaWiki warning with the name of the template and parameter. See Help:Duplicate parameters. If you mean pages assigning two different parameters where only one should be used like owner/owners then I don't know whether any template checks for it but it would be possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PrimeHunter, I did not mean I wanted additional tracking categories. I wanted the template to display a warning message during "SHOW PREVIEW" as most other templates do. The MediaWiki warning you speak of was not working with this template. Today I get the warning: Warning: SciVee is calling Template:Infobox website with more than one value for the "logo" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. which didn't happen yesterday, so it looks like Frietjes has implemented a fix. MB 14:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That warning is an automatic MediaWiki feature for all transclusions. It has been there (with different wording) since phab:T85352 in 2015. It's made by MediaWiki:Duplicate-args-warning and doesn't rely on any code in the transcluded page. For example, {{Void}} does nothing but try previewing {{Void|logo=a|logo=b}}. The warning is at the top of the preview. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PrimeHunter, I have some additional information. The duplicate args warning message is NOT visible during preview within AWB. I neglected to try regular preview mode in the source editor and wasn't thinking this could be an AWB-only problem. Curiously, the warning message for an unknown parameter IS visible within AWB preview. Do you know anything about AWB? MB 23:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frietjes, today I have noticed that when |type= is used, I see nothing in the infobox. I have experimented by blanking all the other fields and there is still nothing. MB 15:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MB, more tracking added, see the list of tracking categories in the documentation. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frietjes. I have cleaned up most of this. I think you can remove all the tracking categories now except the first two. But another problem - I just noticed |industry= is accepted but not displayed... MB 16:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MB, example please? the box in the documentation shows otherwise. Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frietjes, OK. I don't remember what I was looking at. Doing so many changes in AWB, it may have been some other template. MB 17:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MB, possibly T-Shirt Hell where you added a second |industry=. in that case, the page is put in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls and a duplicate parameter warning shows in preview mode. you should probably check Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls for any articles that you added. Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes, yes that was it. I would have caught that except that the duplicate warning does not show in preview mode within AWB! I will go though that entire category after I finish with the remaining unknowns in this template. MB 18:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes, Just noticed that slogan/company_slogan do not give the Warning: Page using Template:Infobox website with unknown parameter. Maybe that is why a few of my removals have been reverted. MB 02:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
correct, it was removed a few months ago with this edit, without any significant discussion. I don't think there is any need to remove it from all the transcluding articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frietjes, I know it was removed from the template and doesn't display in the infobox. But it is still accepted as a valid parameter; it should be handled as an unknown parameter and give the default warning message in Preview Mode.MB 14:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frietjes, Today something changed. Preview is still not showing the "unknown parameter" message AND the tracking category for "slogans" is empty (it used to have over 400).MB 00:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 15 July 2018

Please implement the simplified code I added to the sandbox, which can be found here. It provides support for both ISSNs and eISSNs, even when spelled in all lower-case. Thank you. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cabayi (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AlexaRank

Currently, the suggested templates for AlexaRanks in the infobox are (given the previous ranking is 100):

But in reality, given the nature that it is a ranking, shouldn't "up" mean decrease in ranking number? Thus I think it should be written as:

C933103 (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number decreases but the change is a 'positive' change. I don't see a problem with the current templates. --Izno (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno:I mean, despite the number decreases, the rank is moving in an increasing direction. Thus Going from #100 to #70 should be an increase not decrease. C933103 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Increasing means Y2 > Y1. Going from 100 to 70 is Y2 < Y1. That is a decrease. --Izno (talk)
But when I search "increase" "rank" in google (with quotation marks for exact matches), all the results I see are talking about how to get better in different ranking list. C933103 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. This isn't Google. --Izno (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
......Google is just a reflection of all the different site on the internet and a reflection of mind of people who created content on those sites... C933103 (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@C933103: I'm still confused about about the increase and decrease. --Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am also confused by the current arrangement. C933103 (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recurring issue - eg this apparent resolution. It's conventional for an upward-pointing arrow to show a rise in rank and a downward arrow to show a fall. This is found outside Wikipedia in, for example, tables of sports leagues accompanied by indications of rises and falls. Similarly, Alexa's own trend charting shows improvements in ranking as rising towards the top of the chart towards #1. We confuse our readers and break with convention if we show the vast majority of improvements with upward arrows but reverse that for Alexa. 92.19.25.230 (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_website&oldid=868610820"