Template talk:Infobox website/Archive 3

Duplicate parameters not flagged
{{Infobox website I am working on cleaning up the errors in Category:Pages using infobox website with unknown parameters. Many are caused by {{para|slogan}} which has been removed, and {{para|headquarters}} which may have existed in "Infobox dot-com company" but now needs to be {{para|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. {{u|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)
 * industry =
 * Actually, I see that {{para|location}} and {{para|location_city}} are both displayed as Headquarters, while {{para|headquarters}} is not recognized. Maybe {{para|headquarters}} should be added as a third variant for the headquarters field. MB 22:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * {{U|MB}}, I made some changes to mirror the functionality of {{tl|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)
 * 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 /  then I don't know whether any template checks for it but it would be possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * {{u|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 {{u|Frietjes}} has implemented a fix. MB 14:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That warning is an automatic MediaWiki feature for all transclusions. It has been there (with different wording) since T85352 in 2015. It's made by MediaWiki:Duplicate-args-warning and doesn't rely on any code in the transcluded page. For example, {{tl|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)
 * {{u|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)


 * {{u|Frietjes}}, today I have noticed that when {{para|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)
 * {{U|MB}}, more tracking added, see the list of tracking categories in the documentation. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * {{u|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 {{para|industry}} is accepted but not displayed... MB 16:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * {{U|MB}}, example please? the box in the documentation shows otherwise. Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * {{u|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)
 * {{U|MB}}, possibly T-Shirt Hell where you added a second {{para|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)

{{outdent}} {{u|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)
 * {{u|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. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 02:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * correct, it was removed a few months ago [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_website&diff=next&oldid=751764763 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)
 * {{u|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.<b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 14:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * {{u|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).<b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 00:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cabayi (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

any thoughts? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of response,, 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 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)

Proposal: directors =
Can we add a field for directors of a website rather than (in addition to) editors? Maxgray20 (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove See Also Item
I removed the once great OKbot. Aonus (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

/doc need cleanip
Template:Infobox website/doc need cleanup. areas of the template seem gone and lots of usage of parameter need a fix. Matthew hk (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * 70
 * 100
 * 200
 * 70
 * 100
 * 200
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * That's fine. This isn't Google. --Izno (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ......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)
 * I'm still confused about about the increase and decrease. --Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am also confused by the current arrangement. C933103 (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * FYI, this discussion is now split between here and Village pump (policy) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And the discussion on Village pump is now concluded without any clear outcome other than the general sense of action shall be taken ... C933103 (talk)

Bot Job and arrows
Hello watchers and prior discussion contributors. plans to run a bot job to update these rankings (see Bots/Requests for approval/LkolblyBot). The only thing left to consider is this arrow direction issue. The discussion above doesn't look to solid so am pinging everyone for comments. Feel free to comment here or at the BRFA.
 * . — xaosflux  Talk 14:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the field should be removed as being trivial. We do not define the importance or notability of a website on its Alexa ranking, and updating these fields would make trivial bot edits every X days, which is little to no value add. This is especially true of the long tail of websites. --Izno (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For sure there's a long tail of websites for which it's silly (if your Alexa rank is in the millions, nobody cares). But, I think there is at least marginal value, at least as a rough indicator of website popularity/size/reach. For example, US visitors to the Baidu page would be surprised to see that it is ranked fourth, since it is not a website I have ever visited ever. However, that information doesn't come up in the text of the article until the fourth paragraph (except, of course, for a reference to the Alexa rank itself). I just conducted a straw poll of everyone I know. All three of them said that an "increase in rank" indicates a lower-valued rank for the reason that you're "moving up in the world". Lkolbly (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the arrows bit, even external to the long tail, say, outside the top 100 or 500, nobody cares in the general case. Websites which are highly-ranked by a particular service (since Alexa is not the only service and really never has been) should be covered in some other article (list?) and their rankings adjusted centrally in that one document, with verbiage in the document. As voiced at VPT by another, it's really silly to replicate a single external company's idea of which websites are more or less popular (there is a WP:POV issue in there). --Izno (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it is a little odd to maintain duplicated information from some random 3rd party company (hence the bot request, so humans don't have to care). However, it is useful information, and useful information to keep in the infobox (even if only for the top few thousand). The exact number isn't useful, but it's useful in that it provides a general sense of website popularity, information which is not otherwise present in the infobox. The exact choice of Alexa is arbitrary, for 90% of sites I'm sure most information providers agree.Lkolbly (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I waded into this on my own at and was pointed here.  I would much more want to see actual readership numbers than ranks among some set of sites Alexa ranks.  I think multiple sources giving a range of these actual numbers (since they can be compared to each other) would be more likely to be unbiased.  And if there is to be some graphic alongside website statistics to be created by a bot, then the graphic should be a rendition of the timeline of readership for something like five calendar years, to at least start to kick back against recentism. Wnt (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * At first I was going to say that total readership is usually something websites keep secret, but, SimilarWeb appears to offer a visit counter, so maybe that's not an unreasonable thing to do. I don't know whether they'd be willing to have us mirror that data here, I'd have to ask. Lkolbly (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As someone else noted, it's like tracking stock prices. We don't do it because Wikipedia is not designed for time series data. We are a long-term source of data. But even if we were to keep it updated say yearly, the right way is store the data in a database (CSV file on Commons, or Wikidata) and display via a Lua template, so we don't edit the page with a bot every time it changes which is the worse way. -- Green  C  14:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks like this discussion has expanded to WP:VPPOL. As you are the only editor not to have commented there, you may wish to involve yourself. I would recommend others contribute to that discussion instead. --Izno (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Closed websites
We need additional fields to handle websites that have closed, such as MyDaughter. A notable website continues to be notable after it has closed down, see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. I think we need new fields for the closure date and an archived copy of the homepage when it was active, as follows: Verbcatcher (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * date-closed
 * archiveurl
 * archivedate


 * Dead links are currently handled a number of ways via archive bots (see WP:Link rot). Adding custom mechanisms for each of the many thousands of templates and infoboxes may not be a good idea there is no guarantee the bots will be programmed to handle it. One can mark the link with and run IABot on the page (History tab->Fix dead links). --  Green  C  14:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

How often should Alexa rank be updated?
How often should the Alexa rank be updated on any given website's infobox? I'm asking because one user keeps frequently updating the ranking on Gab (social network), and changing the "increase/decrease" symbols accordingly, which seems unnecessary at best, misleading and/or irritating at worst. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is becoming a topic of discussion in various places. How to technically include this information, what to include, how often to update etc.. IMO this information should be updated maybe once or twice a year and it should be done via a Lua template so we are not constantly manually changing articles and the stats are consistently-relative across articles. It will require an RFC at some point to solidify and a lot of programming efforts. -- Green  C  14:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see and associated VPPOL link. --Izno (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding a "former name" field
Some websites undergo name changes but there is currently no field to indicate this in the infobox, which seems like a large oversight to me. I propose adding a parameter for "former_name" à la Template:Infobox company. Sock  ( tock talk)  00:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

registration
please discuss/clarify: if a website allows read-only access without registration and additionally allows posting for registered users, is that  or  ?--Elastano (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Industry
I see that Industry is included in the preview, but not in the template code itself. Is this a mistake in the template code? JC713 (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove "ip" parameter?
Many web sites -- especially large, notable web sites of the sort that it makes sense to write a Wikipedia article about -- don't have a single, fixed, public IP address. Even if they do, it's not clear why that IP is an aspect of the web site that's important enough to include in the infobox. 2601:204:CA00:3BEA:95CD:C855:7C30:11B1 (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur. IP addresses have, apart from the reasons listed above, no use to the average reader and should not be listed in the infobox. They are also rarely found in sources. Seeking input/consensus from further users, e.g.  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 11:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I added Category:Pages using infobox website with ip to track uses to see if any of these are useful (will take some time to fill up). in the rare case that the website is known by its IP, it could probably be put in url instead.  so, at the very least, we could probably fold the ip into the website slot. Frietjes (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I checked out all of the 22 pages that listed IPs: Out of the 22, 17 listed incorrect/outdated IPs, of which 13 had to be removed due to being unfunctional or linking to other, unrelated websites. This leaves nine pages that presently use this field. The field value can change easily (such as when websites switch to CloudFlare) and it appears that this is very poorly maintained, if ever checked. As you say, if a website only has an IP and not a domain, the IP should be fit into the URL field instead. Do you see any other reason for keeping the IP field that is presently only used in 9 pages? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , no, but it doesn't hurt to wait a day or two to see if there are any comments from anyone else. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with the OP. I would never consider adding an IP to a website infobox since it isn't relevant to most people. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * okay, I will remove it. any new uses will show up in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Pages_using_infobox_website_with_unknown_parameters&from=I the unknown parameters tracking category under I]. Frietjes (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , SporkBot is currently dealing with some renamed parameters, right? Is it currently tuned for deprecated parameter removal, including IP? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * it looks like it, but will have to ask (hopefully removing slogan and company_slogan as well when they are empty). Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason to keep the parameter has been to imply that adding an IP is okay, when there is a source for the IP and it is widely used. Examples are 8.8.8.8, 4.4.4.4. , and a number of others. There has been some discussion whether IPs should go under url's. I think that should we remove the IP parameter, we should also clarify in the documentation for the template that there is consensus that IPs can be listed under url=. Carl Fredrik talk 15:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's what I understand from the preceding comments; yes. Apart from the Google Public DNS, though, I wouldn't know any other example. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , which page needs ip? as far as I can tell, Google Public DNS doesn't have an infobox. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Category:Pages using infobox website with unknown parameters now has 667 pages, but mostly drafts and user pages. Can you restrict this to article space only (I think that's how it was a few days ago). Thanks. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 19:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the parameter again. One week has passed, and no reason has been given to keep the parameter outside a required doc update, which I now also have done. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of hidden screenshots
There was on whether or not it was appropriate to hide non-free lead images in a collapsed box. It was agreed upon the omission of non-free works, by way of hiding them from the reader by default, violates the non-free content criteria by implying the work's complete removal would not "be detrimental to [the understanding of the article topic]." Recently, made a change to hide the screenshot on Disney+, with the rationale that "there's no need to have the screenshot exposed all the time". I want to put this issue on the discussion table once again since there still seems to be contention on how non-free lead images are presented with Infobox website and similar infoboxes that allow for hidden screenshots. Is hiding a non-free lead image a violation of NFCC#8, or is there a legitimate case to be made for hiding non-free works such as File:Disney+ Website.png? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 13:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging, , , , and as participants in the previous discussion on this issue. WikiProjects Infoboxes and Websites have also been notified through their talk pages. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 13:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Also pinging, who has made – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless of non-free image or not, hiding information violates MOS:DONTHIDE. Either remove it completely or show it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to take it to the MoS page where you can change it. --Gonnym (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't these collapsible parameters then be deleted? - Brojam (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with ; unless if specific uses cases exist that need the collapsible screenshot parameter, it should be removed from the template. Daylen (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Error categories
, Category:Pages using infobox website with company slogan or slogan is now empty. It can be deleted now, with future occurrences put in Category:Pages using infobox website with unknown parameters. Thanks. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 05:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * okay, now removed. Frietjes (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Param title "Website" even though it contains URLs
I propose renaming this "Website" parameter title into "Website URL" if only URL is entered. "Website" in the infobox for website is ridiculous and usually (not regarding to the fact it is in the infobox for website) has wide meaning (it can be website name instead of implied [actually wanted-to-be-implied] website URL meaning).

Also, I propose replacing "The canonical URL of the website's home page" in the doc with "URL-template-formatted canonical URL of the website's home page" because we do not give actually canonical URL ( https://www.facebook.com/ is canonical URL for Facebook, with https and www; sometimes even www. is missed and the shortest possible URL is actually given).

Also, "If the website is primarily accessed through its IP, the IP may be listed instead." needs clarification. What is "IP" (IP address, IP as protocol or something else). Examples could be useful. Note will this affect my proposal for param title "Website URL" (are those "IPs" also URL, part of URL or what). --Obsuser (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Amended the documentation and templated for points (1) and (3). Not sure if (2) is worded correctly, though, as does not enforce any formatting and does not remove "www". It does try to remove protocol prefixes, but even those can be overwritten. If the wording really needs amending (although, IMO, the current is fine and understandable), it should address MOS:COMPUTING directly.  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 08:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Coordinates parameter
This template has a coordinates. The documentation does not really say what it would be used for. I guess it could be used for the location of the headquarters of the company behind the website, or it's servers? What would the reader assume them to be? I've never seen a website article use coords. There are no coords in, I assume because many companies have many locations and/or do business in many places - the article is usually not about a specific physical location but about the entity doing business. A website is like this even more so - usually accessible worldwide. I think this parameter should just be deprecated. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 04:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Websites only exist in the cypersphere and have no physical location. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 09:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ? (no objection in a month). <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 03:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:MB, I removed it from the list of known parameters, so any uses should start populating the tracking category. it appears as though the label directly above supports headquarters information, which is probably why it was there in the first place. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Should we document that collapsible parameter doesn't work on mobile?
Per the discussion at Help desk, would it be reasonable to update the documentation to state that collapsible parameter doesn't work on mobile? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Parameters: Required? Huh?
The first paragraph of the Parameters section begins: All parameters are optional. [emphasis added] But, the right-most column of the Template parameters table entitled Status lists optional for every field except one, which is listed as: required.


 * What exactly is a required parameter of an Infobox?


 * If this parameter is omitted does the infobox fail?

--CmdrDan (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and let's not forget about the conflict with the first sentence of the section.

Multiple parameter names???
The table Template parameters has four column headings, but five columns.

It looks like the contents of column one (Name, Logo, Logo size, etc...) should be the heading of the contents in what is now column three, Description, but I'm not sure that's correct.

What exactly is the second column and why do some cells contain multiple words? --CmdrDan (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced in Example
Appears to be an unbalanced   in the example. --CmdrDan (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Question
Is the list of fields in the Usage section an exhaustive list of fields for this template?

Suggestion
Shouldn't the Example have the same number of fields as the Usage section?

If there's no data to populate a field, then just include a comment. The list of fields will then be the same and (when used in an article) the comment is like a fishing line to catch someone's eye in the future. --CmdrDan (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Could probably add CTO?
CTO a.k.a Chief Technology Officer which is an executive post near par with CEO on a dot com company. Tayi Arajakate Talk 01:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There already is key_people which can be used for CTO. only uses key_people for all officers. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 01:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 September 2020
Change template to add transclusion of Template:Infobox company Manabimasu(talk) 02:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Izno (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of Alexa in infoboxes
Watchers of this page may be interested in. Izno (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion was archived without a formal closure and the parameter was removed on October 30th.
 * I only noticed now because one user has started removing Alexa ratings from infoboxes. The discussion was not particularly attended but maybe it was enough, I've not read it all not reviewed the consensus. Nemo 08:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Add annual visits parameter
With the Alexa parameter recently deprecated per this RfC, we now have no infobox metric for indicating the size of a website's readership, which is obviously a rather important encyclopedic characteristic of any site. I therefore propose that we add an annual visits parameter for this purpose. It would be fairly analogous to the users parameter that already exists (only usable for sites better measured by readers than users), or to parameters for other infoboxes like visitors at Infobox museum. (I brought this up briefly at the RfC but it didn't get much discussion as it wasn't the main focus.) Thoughts? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My thought is that you want us to add something that does not exist. We have no reliable source for such numbers. I agree with your point that it would be useful information, but not if it's based on unreliable data (like Alexa). Do you have some proposed source(s)? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , some sites may not have that information, which is alright; we just wouldn't use the parameter for them. But many sites do. Here's a list for all of the top sites in the U.S. I chose xkcd for an example of a smaller website, and found The New York Times (old but definitely reliable, and if we looked harder there's probably something more recent). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that Statista does not provide its own data, rather rehashes another outlet's numbers and creates a chart for it. The name of the source is behind a paywall, but in many cases they use unverified numbers from unreliable sources. Since we have basically no way to verify such numbers, nor will we have them for the vast majority of websites, we should not add such a parameter. Alexa was removed platform-wide for the same reason. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm behind the paywall, too, but per WP:PAYWALL, that's not sufficient grounds if the source is reliable, and we can't just assume it's not. We do not have to establish that this information will be available for every website for it to make sense to add the parameter—even if it's only available for a small fraction, it makes sense to have the option to use it for those pages, and everywhere else can just ignore it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The paywall is not the problem, its frequent use of unreliable info is. I'm coming from the Video games WikiProject, and we have frequently found Statista to use VGChartz as its source. VGChartz builts on rumours, speculation, and approximations, but Statista presented the data as fact. All info we could ever have is either proprietary or based on the website's own numbers, which might not be trustworthy either. It really is the Alexa case all over again. For the sake of verifiability, could you provide the sources Statista used for its numbers? IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 21:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

display footnote title
Why doesn't this template display "Footnotes / references" above the Footnotes field like the Infobox company template? It leaves the footnote reference hanging in space with no explanation or title. Ksu6500 (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

issn and eissn
I think issn can be removed because websites are on the internet and thus only have eissn i.e. ISSN for electronic format or issue. --5.43.73.49 (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Output of parameters
Not all parameters that are in use across articles are displayed actually in those articles (e.g. eissn for this template, and I guess some for Infobox newspaper). --5.43.73.49 (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Link suggestion
Per MOS:SPECIFICLINK, I suggest that we change the link from advertising to online advertising. Thoughts? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Start dates
This has founded and dissolved which are documented as a dates, as well as launch_date. I supposed the intention may have been that founded may have meant to refer to the company behind the website and launch date to when the website was actually operational. But this distinction is not clear when looking at the infobox. Is dissolved supposed to be the company or the website? It can lead to things like Google Bookmarks where only launch+date and dissolved are used and they not displayed adjacently or in the right order. I think this should be simplified - launch_date should become an alias for founded (if there is something else to explain that can be done in the prose), and current_status moved up to date area as well. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 17:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

"no" setting fails to prevent screenshot collapse
I wondered why a screenshot collapsed until I found out that the " " setting no longer prevents screenshot collapse. I just. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Needs developer parameter
This template is also used in web apps and services (example see Google Search), so we also need developer parameter to notify a software developer(s). --Avoinlähde (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The example you link already lists the entity in charge -- Google. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

'publisher' parameter
It would be useful to have a 'publisher' parameter. Nurg (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

https in example
The example contains a link using the http protocol. It might be helpful to replace http with https, to have a better example (as per External_links). The page from which the example is taken (Wikipedia) has already been updated. Nuretok (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Year for stats?
Should there be parameters and  to attribute the figures? This would then match — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)