Template talk:Official website

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dead links[edit]

When the URL property in Wikidata has an end date, as, for example, in Woolworths Group (Q958479), this template (and {{Official URL}} - I'll post a note on its talk page) should do one of these things:

  1. ignore the URL
  2. display the URL, but not as a link (i.e. wrap the URL in <nowiki> tags)
  3. display the URL, but link to archived pages at, say, archive.org as specified in archive URL (P1065)

Which is the best solution? Can someone implement it, please?

(Option 2 or 3 are best suited to {{Official URL}}, in infoboxes). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  • This is a perennial request, 4 or 5 previous requests in the archives. Question: is there a bot currently active on Wikidata that is adding archiveurls or is it being done manually? The reason I ask, it's really too big to rely on manual and we have a couple sophisticated bots that search out and add archives on Wikipedia, but they are not setup to work with Wikidata. -- GreenC 12:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello. Option 3 is a violation of the Wikipedia:External links policy. The policy permits a link to the official website but makes no provisions for a mirror or archived copy of the said website. The mirrors fall into the same category as other external links: Most of the time, we don't want them. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The policy doesn't disallow it either. It says nothing either way. According to Adherence "Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines". When an official website is dead, it is common sense to link to an archived version. This is already being done throughout Wikipedia. If you want explicit permission then I suppose an RfC could be held but I am pretty sure the community would support linking to archived versions of official websites that are dead. There's no common sense reason not to. -- GreenC 12:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
As you yourself said "The policy doesn't disallow it either. It says nothing either way." The policy allows the official website link on a no-questions-asked basis. Other links must be assessed first. When you take option 3, you are suppressing common sense for case-by-case choice in favor of automatic action.
"This is already being done throughout Wikipedia." Yes, and blindly so, without a thought, without regards for the common sense. Editors do it because they see other editors reviving other links with archived versions, never realizing that the other links are mostly citations. My evidence is that there is no justifying reason given in their edit summaries.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Well I'm pretty sure if we need to hold an RfC the community will support fixing link-rot of official-links in the same or similar manner as is currently done for citations. There's no common-sense reason to differentiate them, so far as link-rot goes. -- GreenC 15:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a common-sense reason to differentiate between dead official links and dead links in references. If any encyclopedic information is available at the official link, it can and possibly should be added to the article with the link used as a reference. However, if the link is merely fluff showing that the organization is wonderful and offers great products, there is no reason to archive it. Wikipedia is not a link repository, and is particularly not a repository of dead links. Can someone produce a few examples showing encyclopedic benefit from archiving dead official links? Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I should have included dead links in external links sections .. or anywhere else in an article (not just references). You seem to be advocating dead links outside references bet deleted entirely from an article. I doubt the community would agree with that when archived versions are available. -- GreenC 00:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It's routine to remove dead links from the external links section, although that should occur after a decent search for the original and consideration of whether the link is useful for the article. Someone working on an article might go to the trouble of adding an archived external link because they know the link is sufficiently worthwhile, but in general dead links are useless if not part of a reference. Many EL sections accumulate stuff which would fill the page if not regularly pruned. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
We now have bots to add archives for dead links. It's automatic at this point. Example edit from a few minutes ago but this bot has added over 6 million archive links and does a few hundred thousand more a month. It's not routine to remove archived external links. The content is still there, it's the same content, why would someone remove it? Only if they don't like the content, nothing to do with its archive status. -- GreenC 04:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

missing "edit wikidata" link when using template[edit]

I've noticed just now that where before there used to be the little pencil "edit wikidata" icon after the URL generated by {{Official website}} if the data for that template was coming from wikidata, it's now not showing up. This seems like a recent change, and most likely an error. Anyone more well-versed in the innards of programming Wikipedia/wikidata want to look into that? It seems like something it would be best to have back.

An example of what I mean, where the IMDb template-generated link shows the pencil icon but the Official website-template generated one does not. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes: -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Has it ever been there? It was suggested at Template talk:Official website/Archive 3#Add "Edit in Wikidata" link and added to {{Official website/sandbox}} in [1] but not the live template. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure it used to be there. But even if I'm wrong, it seems like a no-brainer addition. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems to have an extra bracket[edit]

This template seems to be adding an extra bracket after the URL. Can't edit it or view the source because it's protected. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Wasn't this template – it came from a stray bracket after a category. Fixed with [2]. - Evad37 [talk] 11:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! —DIYeditor (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)