Template talk:Internet

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles

Freedom of speech

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles

Earlier deletion

I think such a template might ahve been deleted in 2006, but I cant find the deletion log. Hope this template is ok.--SasiSasi (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet template

While your desire to contribute to WP is admirable, I would suggest to discuss the addition of this template in the relevant talk pages. Please stop adding it to every page related to Internet. The topic is far too wide in scope to warrant this activity. There already is an Internet portal page and I would suggest you help improve that. Your template is far too disruptive to the articles and in most case rather inappropriate. Kbrose (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only added the template to those articles that are included in the template. If you find it disruptive in a particular article please feel free to remove. I did not mean to offend (you sound rather offended). I thought the template might be useful to those readers that do not know about/use the Internet portal. Templates are used successfully in other areas, and I thought it would make the topic more accessible to readers (on a basic "introduction" level). Wikipedia does cover the topic relatively well and the template is one way of showing this. I don’t intend for it to replace the Internet portal, or to go into as much detail as the portal does. We could incorporate a link to the internet portal into the template along the line "For more information please visit", which could be an effective way to point readers to the portal. I think many Wikipedians, especially infrequent users, don’t know about portals (or why they would want to click through)--SasiSasi (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out [1], the Internet Portal only got about 5,590 views in October (that’s views, not unique visitors, and includes those who have edited the Internet portal site itself). That’s not a lot. A lot of work has gone into it, so it would be great if more people use it. The Internet article in Wikipedia gets around 362,600 views a month (its rank 229 for Wikipedia overall). Similarly other internet related articles such as world wide web and email also get a high number of hits. We could direct some of these readers to the internet portal by creating a more visible "Internet portal" template, which can be placed into the articles.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the goal of WP is not to increase click rates but to inform. This is not an ad agency. If people don't visit the Internet portal it's perhaps because there is no interest, so why create something that people don't want. Every article that deals with Internet subjects already links to Internet, and that should be the place to direct people further, and it does contain the portal link. Links to related subjects for each article are meant to be placed into the 'See also' section and references, and wiki links. The use of templates, especially obtrusive ones like yours, should be minimized.

I was trying to make the point that because people do not know what the internet portal is (or why it might be relevant to them) they dont go there. My aim was to make wikipedia articles more accessible to readers who are interested in the subject. In any case, you display such a cheerful and openminded attitude that I guess nobody should bother suggesting anything, because if it was worth considering you would obviously have already done it. I still think its a pity that the Internet portal is not used more.--SasiSasi (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know this discussion had already started on the User page(s), so I started my own at Talk:Network neutrality#Internet template. I think this template is useful, and I didn't know about the Internet Portal page (which is an extra step I probably wouldn't have taken since the subject is so vast and so vague, while the template's choices are right there to be clicked).

I agree that the template, while attractive, is a bit gaudy and distracting; one should be able to shrink the template's bulk without detracting significantly from its aesthetics. But this all now belongs on some general page (e.g. the template's own discussion page or Network neutrality#Internet template) rather than on a one-way User talk page. (Just let me know where you've moved it.)—— Shakescene (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the style, there is also the option of a footer (see example [2]) which can be put into the relevant article collapsed or expanded at the bottom of the page (some people put it between sections, but thats not very common).

Regarding the aesthetics of the existing template. We can easily make it narrower, but then it’s likely to become longer which poses problems for short articles (less links per line, can’t reduce the size of the link text as far as I am aware). We could make it narrower, and take the picture out (it’s a nice touch but rather large). And/or, we could also change the colour, it is very bright! Which makes the template stand out a lot.

Regarding in-article template vs. footer, in this case I would be in favour of in-article template, because it can be placed at the top or middle of the article (many people never scrawl down to the bottom) where it’s more accessible. I would argue this for basic templates (I think this one just about passes as basic), while one can go into quite a lot of detail with footers.

and.... I am still interested in putting an Internet portal link into the template... maybe at the top (instead of the picture).--SasiSasi (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had trouble finding the continued discussion (I looked at Talk:Internet rather than here), before trying to shrink the thing here, by about 18%, and adding a section for the three main guides to Internet topics. Some articles have huge tables of contents so it seems to do no harm to put the reduced template on the right-hand side, filling the white space and balance the T of C; but you might want to create a footer for the articles with shorter contents boxes. But we're all trying to be flexible. Shrinking the text was a bit of a pain (lots of <small>s), but I was inspired by this template: Template:2008MLBPlayoffs. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you were not the only one inspired by it :-). Still not sure about the colour though..

also, I am thinking we should maybe recruit a person knowledgeable about internet to comment on the categorisation, just to be sure it does not cause controversy.

I like the idea of a footer for the shorter articles, will try and do one once we got the categorisation finalised.

Any thoughts on picture or no picture? Most articles on the list do have relevant pictures, and it would bring down the size further (which would make it less intrusive).--SasiSasi (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No particular thoughts about the picture. It's easier with geographical, historical, political, corporate, judicial and institutional topics where you can often use a portrait, flag, seal, coat of arms or logotype. I don't think anyone looks forward to the day when there's an Official Seal, Flag and Coat of Arms of the Internet. Many templates, especially footers, don't have images, although this template would be kind of grey without some sort of graphics. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take it out and try and put a link to the portal on the top. And then I will try and recruit some more technical people to ok the categorisation.--SasiSasi (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical details

I don't know if orange is dictated as the color for Internet or technical topics; if not, perhaps we can mute it. Also I think collapsing (show/hide) the topic headers might lessen the apparent overload. See, for example, (and boy am I far from being, or wanting to be, a template nerd): template:New York City. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

don’t think there is any dedicated color, or one that usually used for technical topics... I guess I felt quite cheerful when I did the template and now I am worried that its too in your face. Well, if anybody really bothers they can change it later.--SasiSasi (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing picture with Internet portal link

I have tried to replace the pic in the template with the link to the internet portal

, which actually looks really good, but I cant get it centre aligned.... if anybody can help? --SasiSasi (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).== Picture regarding internet censorship is incorrect == In holland there is internet censorship, ie tpb blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.215.102.160 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did the above comment end up in the right place? There is no picture about Internet censorship in this template. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New image

The image with transaparent colors is better to watch than the 'black', I think.

--Rezonansowy (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretitle?

Should a pretitle field be added to this template to make the purpose of the sidebar clear? (Similar to Template:Alternative medicine sidebar and other sidebar templates) An editor at Internet meme appeared to be confused by the image, and I think the pretitle This article is part of a series on might make its purpose more explicit. Schazjmd (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]