Template talk:Website

Tab and Content Revamp
I’m planning on changing the layout of the tabs and content using some feedback from my friend Garrick.


 * Overview
 * logo
 * sitename
 * name/url
 * rights
 * language
 * description
 * tags
 * timezone
 * Current activity
 * Users
 * Active users
 * Admin:
 * Articles
 * Edits
 * Images
 * Jobs
 * Pages
 * Views:
 * Last updated
 * Semantic statistics
 * Technical
 * mw version
 * extensions used
 * php version
 * timezone offset
 * db type
 * db version
 * wiki id
 * Apiary settings
 * validated
 * active
 * check every
 * collecting


 * I agree, this wiki is still in the making so some big changes are likely to happen. I would however suggest to change the second group "Current activity":


 * Usage
 * Users
 * Users
 * Active users
 * Admins
 * Contents
 * Articles
 * Images
 * Pages
 * Activity
 * Edits
 * Jobs
 * Views
 * Last updated
 * Last updated Semantic statistics


 * Actually I tried to embed a table like this into the parser function yesterday, but I forgot about the pipes. O_o The rest looks very ok to me. --&#91;&#91;kgh&#93;&#93; (talk) 05:54, January 1, 2013 (CST)


 * I like that better. Thanks! The tables have to be extracted from the template and move to a pure  approach. Thingles (talk) 07:49, January 1, 2013 (CST)


 * Until now, I did not see that you already replied to this. Still perfections is possible. The changes can be done step by step. One big change would be to spit up the general information and allocate it to the new sections. Hmm, querying and setting the results would be one way to do it. --&#91;&#91;kgh&#93;&#93; (talk) 18:04, January 4, 2013 (CST)


 * I just had my battle with the  approach and lost. I changed it to pure wikitext for the time being to make it look ok again. I think I should leave this revamp to you since you have a much better idea of were you would like to get to with this. Apparently, this lies it the nature of things. :) Cheers --&#91;&#91;kgh&#93;&#93; (talk) 19:06, January 4, 2013 (CST)


 * Nice improvements either way... it looks better already. Thingles (talk) 22:28, January 4, 2013 (CST)


 * I could not resist and did some other changes to the Usage section. Cheers --&#91;&#91;kgh&#93;&#93; (talk) 07:05, January 5, 2013 (CST)

I think this could be a nice improvement of the update info section. Cheers --&#91;&#91;kgh&#93;&#93; (talk) 19:15, January 4, 2013 (CST)
 * 1
 * 2
 * Views
 * Last update
 * Regular statistics
 * Semantic statistics
 * I am having second thoughts about this. :) --&#91;&#91;kgh&#93;&#93; (talk) 07:05, January 5, 2013 (CST)

Has bot segment
✅

No SMW reporting message change
"| This wiki does not use Semantic MediaWiki." is misleading, should be "| This wiki does not use Semantic MediaWiki 1.8+." or something which clarifies that it may indeed have SMW, just not a recent version.--Ete (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Predominantly (99%+) this statement is correct. Well, do wikis using SMW <1.6 still count as semantic wikis. ;) I will do a change. Cheers --&#91;&#91;kgh&#93;&#93; (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Beat ya to it &#91;&#91;kgh&#93;&#93;. :-) I just made it not put anything if semantic stats aren't being collected. Much easier. 🐝 thingles (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, good on ya! --&#91;&#91;kgh&#93;&#93; (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Typo
The wording "So far not description has been added for this wiki" should be "So far no description has been added for this wiki". Philip J. Rayment (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. :) Thank you for leaving a note. --&#91;&#91;kgh&#93;&#93; (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

rephasing suggestion
please change "So far this wiki has not been tagged. You are welcome to add them." to "So far this wiki has not been tagged. You are welcome to add tags." --Waldir (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion Waldir. I changed the wording around and also took the opportunity to add a  inline as well. 🐝 thingles (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Default skin
Apparently, Template:Skin in use (in the subpage /Skins) registers which of the skins in use is default, using a Boolean value for Property:Is default skin. It would be useful if this information is also shown on the main page. Cavila (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, I've made to track.--ete (talk)  10:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's already working now on sites that have recently been audited. Cavila (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Has API URL and Has additional API URL
I use the Has API URL query to see if a wiki has been added, and if not, add it to. I though the Additional API URL parameter would list the URL on the same query, but it isn't. Instead, it's using it's own property: Has additional API URL.

This makes some of my queries to fail incorrectly, because many sites are accessibles from both www. and non-www. domain URLs, and usually lists them only in one of them but not the other. While I add those alternate API URLs, they end not being reflected on the Has API URL query, defeating the purpose of the query to detect duplicate pages.

IMHO, Has additional API URL has no sense here. That property should be merged with Has API URL. --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merging it so Has API URL is an array seems like a good idea to me, it would simplify the website check duplicate template and make the bookmarklet work more often, though I'd like to hear why thingles set it up the way it is before changing. The bots may get confused unless they were tweaked to pick the first API URL specifically. Also, Has stripped API URL may be more useful for that specific case and should work immediately, since http/https and www/no www duplicate urls are not generally added as additional API URLs. --ete (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, Has_stripped_API_URL is very useful for that. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks! --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What about this goodie? That's how I do it and there are only a few false positives (1 in 30). Cheers --&#91;&#91;kgh&#93;&#93; (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing! I use this one now to check if the wiki exists. . --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)