Template talk:Official website

Dead links
What's the correct way to mark a official website as a dead link? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This comes up over and over in the talk archives. The last discussion of any note is Template_talk:Official_website/Archive_3. Some people say if the link is dead it should be deleted entirely from Wikipedia and not replaced with an archive URL. I don't understand that thinking. It is further complicated by Wikidata. IMO I would delete the template and replace it with using the title arg to give the same wording eg.   which produces:
 * -- Green  C  16:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, P856 supports inclusion of an archive URL property like the citations templates do (example), but this template does not make use of it. If I knew template code well enough, I would boldly adjust to treat it as the citation templates do, but since I do not I simply record that wish here so maybe someone else will try it. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 02:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's true and called . Is there someone out there who indeed knows module code well enough and has admin rights to edit it? You can use the example of and Scorpia (journalist). -Cardace (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I also support adding archive-url support. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * archive-url is a CS1|2 argument name. I don't think we should use that key name, unless it is a CS1|2 template, to avoid confusion about which arguments the template supports. -- Green  C  19:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what confusion that would cause. But it seems like this template emits its own HTML code. Why is that? Why doesn't it call cite web with appropriate parameters? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If it keeps coming up, perhaps some text should be included in the documentation to explain what to do with a dead official website (both in the case of a completely dead site and in the case of an updated URL)? Rowing007 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I support archive capability as well. ɱ  (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I came here from Space Station 76, and all I want to say is: Ditto. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have modified the documentation to include advice about dead links. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have modified the documentation to include advice about dead links. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Handling Equal Signs
It doesn't appear that official can handle it if there is a equal sign in the url for example, Dimitar Berbatov has * and it throws wierd errors. What is the proper way, can it be made, I think the term is "URL-safe"?Naraht (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As explained in the documentation (Some URLs that contain special characters...), like this: * &rarr; – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

When did mobile get removed?
When did mobile as a parameter get removed here?Naraht (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 29 July 2023 by . – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanx. Cleaning up Category:Pages using Official website with unknown parameters and figured most of them were from that.Naraht (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't want to jump on that immediately in case someone noticed and I got into one of the common WP:FAIT arguments about the validity of a parameter. Izno (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Use inside Infobox?
Is there any guidance that it is not appropriate to have this template in an infobox?Naraht (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Does the infobox have a field for official website? --  Green  C  22:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Template under discussion is Infobox_fraternity field is website. Field is "website -The URL of the official website."Naraht (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not recall any prohibition on use of Official website in infoboxes, but the documentation for some infoboxes provide guidance that the website parameter should be for an official website only (e.g., Infobox person).
 * For the infoboxes I usually deal with, the general practice has been to display only the url of the website link (not including the http/https portion). The documentation and examples often suggest the use of URL. Official URL can be a useful alternative. Note that in some cases, the infobox documentation specifically advises not to include the www. portion of the url unless the website requires it (presumably to save space in space-constrained infoboxes). However, Official URL displays the full website name including the www. portion if that is what is stored in wikidata or passed in as the first parameter.
 * In addition to URL, Official URL, and Official website I have seen external links like About Me used, especially when the official website url is very long. Others also use, incorrectly, the deprecated second parameter of URL to display alternative text instead of the url itself.
 * Note that it appears that Official website (with no parameters) will show a website link from wikidata, even if the website is marked as deprecated and displays an error if there is no website in wikidata. Official URL does not display a deprecated link nor an error message if there is no website in wikidata. &mdash;  Archer1234  (t·c) 00:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's a search that shows at least a few infoboxes using the template. There are a bunch of false positives in this search result; someone else could probably make a better search, but scrolling through 37 results isn't that hard. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Mismatch when there are multiple official websites
"Module:Official website," when used to create "Category:Official website different in Wikidata and Wikipedia," appears to assume that there is one and only one official website listed in Wikidata. However, this is not necessarily the case. For example, see FIFA Men's World Ranking which lists an official website, https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/men, and the corresponding Wikidata page, which has 3 official pages listed, https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/, https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/women, and https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/men. So, despite the Wikipedia page and the Wikidata page both listing an overlapping identical official page, the Wikipedia page is still flagged by the module to be a member of "Category:Official website different in Wikidata and Wikipedia," because the Wikidata page also lists two other official pages. This seems like an incorrect outcome. Is it possible for the module to be modified to check any official website included in the Wikidata listing? So long as Wikidata allows the inclusion of multiple official websites, this seems like a worthwhile change. Coining (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The website for the women's ranking should probably be moved to Wikidata:FIFA Women's World Rankings. At some point, Q180825 should be moved to include the word "Men's" in its title. Multiple Wikipedias have already made this change, including English, sv, sco, no, nl, and others. Wikidata is a laggard in this instance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will look into making those changes. I still think that there is a broader issue with the module not checking all of the official websites listed on Wikidata. So long as Wikidata allows multiple official websites, the module should not flag a discrepancy so long as the Wikipedia listing matches one of the Wikidata entries. Coining (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there really a problem here? The module code appears to handle multiple web sites gracefully, assigning scores by Wikidata rank and the order in which the URLs are listed, and preferring websites listed as being in English. In the FIFA article you linked to, the URL is provided in the official website template, which is why the "men's" URL is used. Wikidata does not appear to be consulted at all in that instance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. I think we can close this issue. I made all of the above recommended Wikidata changes, and as soon as the women's ranking official website was removed from the Q180825 listing, and the men's ranking official website was given a preferred rank on Q180825, the flag for "Category:Official website different in Wikidata and Wikipedia" on the Wikipedia page went away. Thank you, Jonesey95 for your help. Coining (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikidata is not a laggard, Wikidata maintains a stable identity for its items. If you want to distinguish the Men’s world rankings from the general concept, you should create a new item for it; if you are shifting the subject of a Wikipedia article, you may want to link it to another item. (See also d:Talk:Q180825.) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)