Topics from 2007

Unnecessary information

I propose that the bottom two lines of the template content (Stock Symbol, Annual Revenue, Employees and Website) go beyond the purpose of a navigational template, and should be removed to keep the template as small as is reasonably possible. Templationist 08:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many corporate templates have this information as this is standard pratice on business templates. Template:3M and Template:Apple are two examples. Martin Porcheron ^{need help? just ask!} 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pagerank?

I don't know what "Pagerank" is doing on the bottom of Google products table. It's external link and provides to sabetudo.net and then to wordpress.com 83.22.230.127 19:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the link should no appear like this, if anything we would have a link to the Pagerank article on wikipedia, but it also does not deserve an entire line. Behun 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PageRank has been placed in the 'Search' section and alphabetized. Andrew

With the new pagerank, I think we should remove it since it is in the subsection of the web link to Google search. Also, it makes it seem that google is searching pagerank and in reality, google uses the technology pagerank to search. Behun 23:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Apps

I wasn't sure how to categorize Google Apps, so I just put it in the same category as the products that are included in it. Andrew 22:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a B2B category which features a few Google products.

I have reverted it because it's at odds with the other categories. Advertising, communication and so on can be differentiated based on usage. B2B refers to another dimension and does not, in my humble opinion, fits in. In addition, JotSpot is not officially a Google product. John Seward 04:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FeedBurner

Shouldn't FeedBurner be added? 64.230.23.69 19:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nowrap cruft

Is this strictly necessary? I'm not a fan of crufting-up templates for the sake of it. In particular, part of the point of editing this was to make it as generic as possible. I don't support the idea of navboxes all being beautiful and unique snowflakes. Chris Cunningham 09:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting this, because it clearly rolls back content while being labelled as "minor formatting fixes". Some discussion would be nice. Chris Cunningham 11:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see the note here. The whole idea is that not everyone has the same browser width, and without s a lot of the content gets pushed to the next line without its label. I've re-reverted some of the (more minor) changes (a lot of which has to do with alphabetization and disambiguation links rather than the "nowrap cruft" you are taking issue with) but kept out the larger {{nowrap|}} changes in the top and bottom sections so we can discuss the issue further (if necessary...). I kept the non-breaking spaces in the group names because those can easily stretch into a second row way before it is needed. Try making the width of the page smaller with each version of the template and you will see what I am talking about. Paul^C/_T+ 19:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that we gain a lot from the nowraps. The template will auto-insert non-breaking spaces now before bullet points, so the only potential wrapping is in the middle of some multi-word links (which can be wrapped individually if it's really needed, or reworded as you've done). The other change that concerns me is the width; is there a particular reason for artificially restricting this? I can't find any MoS comments, so I assume it's just for aesthetics, but I don't really like the idea of navboxes being customised to this extent. Chris Cunningham 12:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template vs. infobox

Is the number of employees or a link to the site relevant? Templates and infoboxes serve separate functions. My thought is that this should just be a collection of articles on Wikipedia, and certainly should not repeat any info given in the infobox. Richard001 08:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're both templates: do you mean navboxes vs infoboxes? I suppose I'm inclined to agree, but I really just saw the corporate info as being some bling rather than an attempt to reiterate information. Remember too that this template appears in articles where the infobox information isn't available. Chris Cunningham 09:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see Richard001's point, if people want to find out information on Google Inc, they should check the article Google instead of going to page, say, Google AdWords to find this information out from a footer template. I personally think this information should be removed from the template and leave just the links to other Google articles. Martin Porcheron ^{talk to me}_{my edits} 23:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubleclick

Until DoubleClick is actually purchased by Google, they should not be on the template. As of now, it is a planned event, but not an executed one. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topics from 2008

Converting navbox to navpage link

07-Feb-2008: I am modifying "Template:Google Inc." to become a one-line navbox to link to the whole as a navpage, no longer filling each article with 120 formatted links. Large navboxes are filling the Wikipedia page-link database(s) with propagated links. See: Wikipedia:Overlink_crisis.

Once readers display the navpage, separately, they are free to use that navbox as a central menu, by right-clicking to spawn each article in a new browser window. Because the Wikipedia page-links are no longer propagated, as choking the page-link database(s), now the template can be expanded to list perhaps 200 articles about Google, with no multiplied drain on the Wikipedia servers. Each article about Google will then display faster, with just the short, thin navbox.

Rather than limiting a navbox to the major related topics, some navboxes have become the condensed key contents of an entire article, in a "boxified form" to be appended to another article. Such navboxes are the total opposite of the wikilink concept: details should be kept separate by linking to another article via a single wikilink, rather than repeating portions of that article, again, in the current article. The notion of repeating all major aspects of another article in the boxed form as navbox contents is contrary to the wikilink concept. For example, mentioning that a singer often performed in a famous concert hall requires just one link to that singer's name, not an entire navbox linking that singer's albums, singles, co-singers, songwriters, tours, and TV specials.

The Google-Inc. navbox had grown to contain 120 wikilinks, used in over 120 articles, thereby propagating 120*120= 14,400 wikilinks into the page-link database(s). The reduced Google-Inc. navbox will avoid flooding an article with excessive details, by showing just a short, thin box linking to the full navpage. Total overlinks will be reduced by about 14,000 page-links. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Template:Google Inc." has been modified now as a one-line navbox to link to the whole as a navpage. I have verified that 14,000 wikilinks have been dropped from the Wikipedia page-link database(s), but it took about 4 minutes after the template was saved. Wikipedia, internally, had to decouple or unlink all the backlinks from about 123 articles which use the template (see full list under "What links here"). -Wikid77 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you're the sole editor of the supporting document, which apparently directly contradicts WP:PERF, I'd really wish you'd waited for some discussion (i.e. more than two hours after proposing it) before making this change. The benefits do not appear to outweigh the drawbacks, and putting the navbox on a separate page makes it no more useful than the category links. I think this should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the option below: Varying navbox per article. --Wikid77 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Varying navbox per article

07-Feb-2008: Perhaps the navbox "Template:Google Inc." should be varied with parameters, such as "products=no" or "corporate=yes" to allow showing only portions in some articles. There has been considerable debate about the contents of the navbox: some users want a few more items listed, while others wish the navbox were even smaller, with many Google products removed. Above, I modified the navbox to become a larger, full navpage, to add perhaps 100 more items into the box; however, other users still want a smaller, embedded navbox within particular Google-related articles. On the open extreme, the full navpage mode can be "all things to all people" but with options to still display only parts in navbox mode, limited by parameters, within particular articles. To explain the parameters, as is done with other templates, an external template doc subpage ("/doc") can be created to document the various options, which are no longer "one size fits all" but a range of displays to support more choices. For the full coverage, the standalone full navpage would show all possible links to related articles. What do you think? -Wikid77 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose parameterisation to include different levels of information depending on the context. I don't particularly think it necessary, but it's doable. Do you have a proposed set of options? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See proposed options below, under: #Balance concerns of corporate/products/wiki/more. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article performance is each editor's concern

08-Feb-2008: The guideline WP:PERF focuses on the wiki server-performance issues, not on article-display issues, basically stating that the wiki developers have purposely limited or delayed the server operation to prevent groups of users from creating denial-of-service events. The guideline really focuses on minute-to-minute response time, not on long-term plans about storing Wikipedia data. Exceptions to the guideline admit exceptions as unallowable pages, such as when the servers will limit and truncate very large pages that might hog server operation. However, if an editor creates a page with a 1-megabyte moving graphic image, that is not a server-side concern, and readers will simply have to wait until the 1-megabyte graphic is transfered into their browsers. The guideline WP:PERF basically states that no single user can stop server response for all other users, but it doesn't mean users can't systematically make a set of pages way too big or way too slow for comfortable viewing. The wiki servers will simply delay the viewing/editing of big pages, allowing other readers to view/save their smaller pages comfortably.

Another technique which protects general users from a "hog user" is the queuing (or stacking) of template-based article updates. If one user changes a common template used by 6,000 articles, then those 6,000 articles are simply queued into a "job queue" that delays the cross-referencing of wikilinks in that template, delaying the total processing to span several minutes or hours, for each article to be re-indexed into the page-link database(s). There might be 10 copies of those articles on the various wiki-servers, but all updates are spread out, giving ample time, to allow other users to access Wikipedia with only minor delays. A wiki-server job queue, at any time, might contain over 1 million jobs to update the page-links caused by wikilinks between numerous pages.

However, the delayed queuing of article-link updates doesn't mean that putting 100 extra wikilinks in a template is "just fine" with the universe. Limiting templates to "20 things we like about this topic" is preferable to boxifying an entire article as a navbox with 100-200 wikilinks, then tacking that navbox onto thousands of articles, which have several navboxes each.

The use of whole navpages is a streamlined alternative: limiting the scope of most wikilinks to just the one page, rather than propagating numerous page-links into all related articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This argument would be much better made in a more centralised location, because it is equally pertinent to the navbox culture in general. For the sake of justifying my immediate belief that this particular change should be reverted, I'll reply here now though. I don't believe that Wikipedia's policy on overlinking has anything whatsoever to do with navigation templates, and I think you're parsing WP:PERF while ignoring the broader picture (which is that as one of the top ten trafficked sites on the Internet for several years now, it should be possible for the project to address performance issues without affecting editors). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Overlink crisis. --Explodicle (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balance concerns of corporate/products/wiki/more

16/18-Feb-2008: To support a wider array of Wikipedia readers, I ~~propose modifying~~ modified the single template to vary display by using parameters, as in the following points P1-P5:

P1: corporate=yes - would display top CEO/Directors section, Advertising (AdSense/AdWords/etc.) & bottom Revenues/stock/etc.
P2: products=yes - would display the products sub-sections, but not Advertising? (for AdSense/etc.).
P3: The default - shows product groups (products=yes).
P4: standalone mode - would display all above, but more of what other users want to display that was considered "too much detail" for the original navbox (but not for standalone mode). I suggest the "more stuff" be added above the Revenue/stock section, and that stuff could be multiple groups, perhaps including products-in-work (?) only seen in navpage mode, on the standalone full-page.
P5: doc-page link - appears below navpage in standalone mode, to get documentation about the parameters. Normally, a doc subpage is appended in standalone mode to a template. However, using the template as a navpage, that doc subpage would clutter the display for readers using the navpage as a menu, not an analysis of template features.

The whole idea is to balance the concerns of many groups:

Some people wanted all products removed (use corporate only).
Some people wanted stock/website removed (products instead).
Some people wanted more products (but corporate used the space).
Some people wanted more whatever, but navbox seemed too big.
Suppressing unneeded links helps wiki-servers to re-index the related articles faster, but performance is not critical, just helpful.

Overall the goal is to balance concerns, not decide a "tyranny of the majority" but try to also support minority views by using parameters (which are simple to implement once a copy-cat pattern is seen). The goal is NOT to minimize wiki-server impact, but rather balance all the above concerns. There might be a 3rd obvious parameter that should be implemented. So far, the template parameters meet the requests of at least 12 editors above (read topics above).

See programming "NOTES" comments inside the template. As of January 2008, the Wikipedia wiki-servers skip internal HTML comments during wiki-formatting, omitting them before Internet transfer of the formatted page.

Try to reply below, referring to points P1-P5 as decribed above, or whatever phrases used above. For extensive reply, consider using a subheader section with 3 "===" on each side. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 16Feb2008, revised 13:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to check navbox parameters

16/18-Feb-2008: Parameters are used in hundreds of templates to vary the display based on parameter values passed from each separate article. To allow "corporate=yes", the following coding has been added to the template (Google_Inc.):

   {{
   #ifeq: {{{corporate|no}}}|no|<!--skip-->|<!--
    --else-put-corporate-text-->
   }}<!--endif corporate-->

The navbox would be invoked using "{{Google_Inc.|corporate=yes}}" to show CEO/Directors, Revenue, employees, stock, website, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four languages (LINKs) repeated. Could any admin help me, doing it: the correction

Languages

Deutsch
Français
Magyar
日本語
Nederlands
Português
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
中文

Magyar

Bahasa Indonesia

Français
Português
Русский

Do you?

& 1st: anyone is going to read this, if I write it down (as is...) in this TALK page?

2nd: Did you understand what I mean? (1st if I did it well, so one admin read 2me, and then if she/he understand this help request).

Thank you very much / reading 2me and more if u help me,
but I don't know many about this process, i.e: template & HELP request, like now,
2 myself 2 do the correction, at the section: languages: Four languages (LINKs) repeated.

You can see that I have two problems: 1) about wikipedia editing, and what I can & cannot
2) About the comunication of things like this one to administrator of enWikipedia, (my help request).
Could any admin help me, about this operation = deleting of the four repeated ones?. I think is important to know how 2use templates 2 look for the admin atention. And I don't! Ciao! & thank you!

--PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay: this template was a complete mess. I've removed the duplicate interlanguage links. Thanks for pointing this out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to the simple version

User:Wikid77's changes to this template have made it massively more complicated for seemingly little gain. As navboxen are gradually moving towards being simpler, more generic and stamdardised, this template should continue to follow that trend. The gains, as I pointed out above, are not significant enough to outweigh this, and there hasn't been any support from others for these changes. I'll catch any fall-out on transcluded pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13-Nov-2008: Wow, I just read about that revert of the February navbox; see detailed response below under "Custom navbox...". -Wikid77 (talk) 12:36, 13 Nov 2008

Custom navbox for consensus of 13 editors

13-Nov-2008: I have re-added parameters as the custom navbox (similar to March-June), which at the time represented a consensus for 13 concerned Wikipedia editors. However, now I have also simplified the internal coding to look more like other navbox coding. Recall from February:

Some people wanted all products removed (use corporate only).
Some people wanted stock/website removed (products instead).
Some people wanted more products (but corporate used the space).
Some people wanted 2 separate Google navboxes, but others not.
Some people wanted more whatever, but navbox seemed too big.
Suppressing unneeded links helps wiki-servers to re-index the related articles faster, but performance is not critical, just helpful.

The result was this navbox that did it all. By suppressing parts of the large navbox (with "corporate=no" or "products=no"), each user could use the "Google Inc." navbox for their viewpoint in each Google-related article. Plus, it stayed as one navbox to edit. I worked for days to balance the views of those 13 people, and yes, the result was a little complicated. --------- However, Google is a big supporter for Wikipedia, and articles are favored in Google searches: many readers come to Wikipedia from first-pages of Google searches. Hey, Google indexes 3,820,000 Wikipedia pages, so if the Google navbox seems more sophisticated & flexible than others, I don't think that is preferential excess towards Google.

Please let the 13 Google writers have their diversity and options to display the parts they feel are more pertinent for each Google-related article. Meanwhile, I have simplified the internal navbox coding to look clearer, but it was used for 4 months without objection from those 13 people, so there was no anti-consensus to revert the flexible parameters within 4 months of adding them. If I had been alerted to killing the navbox parameters in June, I would have explained all this sooner, but I wandered here after thousands of other articles since February. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:36, 13 Nov 2008