Template talk:Official website

Shouldn't this template read Wikidata's P407 (language of work or name) qualifier?

In cases where there is no English version of the official website, it would be nice to have the option to fetch the P407 (language of work or name) qualifier - it is required on Wikidata - and embed its content within a Template:in lang template. Iketsi (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That would be nice. Are you willing to sandbox the template to do so? :) --Izno (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It would also be nice if it handled the P1065 (archive URL) qualifier when provided. This template currently links to dead links, otherwise. - Iketsi (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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#Dead_links. 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 {{webarchive}} using the |title= arg to give the same wording eg. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309010101/https://example.com|date=2021-03-09|title=Official website}} which produces:

Official website at the Wayback Machine (archived 2021-03-09)

-- GreenC 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)

Pencil icon

For websites where a URL is not provided, the template relies on Wikidata information. I like doing this, as it abides by the don't repeat yourself principle, consolidating where we host information. However, I don't like that it creates a distracting pencil icon next to the URL. Is it really necessary to have this icon? As a potential alternative, we could just put a notice at the top of the template documentation here explaining that if you're here since you'd like to update a website that isn't specified on the page, just go to Wikidata. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Having a link to edit Wikidata makes it easier to figure out how to correct any errors/update to a new website (and therefore more likely to happen). I think that's better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Very much agree with WhatamIdoing because it makes the fact that wikidata is being used explicit and it makes wikidata discoverable. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Sdkb on this one, and find it a bit distracting too. The vast majority of folks using Wikipedia are readers. This icon applies to a slim fraction of a percent of folks that might want to click it to update/modify the entry. Perhaps this icon should only be visible for users that are logged in, but otherwise not shown. There must be a CSS-way to enable this. +mt 20:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes

At this time, it doesn't make sense to use the {{Official website}} template in infoboxes, because it doesn't show a URL to users which is useful in infoboxes. Somehow the matter should be resolved so that the official website link in the infobox could also be taken from Wikidata using the {{Official website}} template. Or if not with this template, then with someone else? {{URL}}? --Avoinlähde (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)