From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Google Inc. template.
	Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming

This template is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:BusinessWikiProject Business articles WikiProject Business (Rated Template-Class) Business and economics portal v • d • e This template is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Business 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.  Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles WikiProject Internet (Rated NA-Class) Internet portal v • d • e This template is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.  NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles WikiProject Websites (Rated Template-Class) v • d • e This template is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.  Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale. SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles WikiProject Software (Rated NA-Class) Software portal v • d • e This template is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer software 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.  NA  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale. ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles WikiProject Computing (Rated Template-Class) Information technology portal v • d • e This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computing 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.  Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Archives

Talk-page subpages: /Examples - examples of using this template

Contents 1 Topics from 2006-2007 1.1 Separation of templates 1.2 TfD nomination of Template:Google services 1.3 Revenue for 2006 1.4 Removal of Labs Products 1.5 Green header too garish... 1.6 Google logo at the header? 1.7 Returned specific width 1.8 YouTube 1.9 Removal of product section 1.10 Google Groups 1.11 Google.org and .tld 1.12 Google Checkout 1.13 Google Patents 1.14 Unnecessary information 1.15 pagerank? 1.16 Google Apps 1.17 FeedBurner 1.18 nowrap cruft 1.19 Template vs. infobox 1.20 Doubleclick 2 Topics from 2008 2.1 Converting navbox to navpage link 2.2 Varying navbox per article 2.3 Article performance is each editor's concern 2.4 Balance concerns of corporate/products/wiki/more 2.4.1 How to check navbox parameters 2.5 Four languages (LINKs) repeated. Could any admin help me, doing it: the correction 2.6 Reverting to the simple version 2.7 Custom navbox for consensus of 13 editors 3 Topics from 2009 3.1 Display bug when corporate=no 3.2 Fixed bug when corporate=no 3.3 Subpage /Examples tests parameters 3.4 Retrofit talk-page year headers/subpages 3.5 Google TiSP 3.6 Google Ventures 3.7 Template Changes 3.7.1 Draft Version Commenting 3.7.2 Google Development Layout

[edit] Topics from 2006-2007

[edit] Separation of templates

I suggest that this template be used only on the Google corporate article - for all software and web services articles, the template Template:Google_services should be used instead. This template is too complicated and includes many links to non-Google services. Kungming2 04:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would think that deletion of this template is a much better option. It's not nearly as attractive and well-designed as Template:Google_services. Plus, why do we need two separate templates? Dr. Cash 05:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This template has basically been superseded by Template:Google_services, and all future Google articles that link to the template at Template:Google_services should us that template. This template here might be nominated for deletion. –- kungming•2 ^(Talk) 05:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead, I think its best to merge the two templates into one (keep Template talk:Google Inc. except use part of the organizaion from Template:Google services). By the way, no fair use images in templates (or any other non-article page), so the Google image should be removed--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that really? Then what about Template:AMD_processors? It has AMD's logo built into the template as well. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 15:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That image needs to be removed as well. Please remember that fair use images can only be used on mainspace articles, not for decorative purposes (such as for User pages and templates). I suggest checking out Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 15:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for telling me. I've removed the image from the Template:Google_services, but as for the AMD one, I think it would be good to first contact the maker of that template about fair-use images. –- kungming•2 ^(Talk) 17:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

moving following comment to here from deleted "google services" talkpage. -Quiddity

Google Local has had its name changed to Google Maps, see here. –- kungming•2 ^(Talk) 16:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Google services

Template:Google services has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. - David Björklund (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This template had been supported for deletion in an informal vote also - see Talk:Google#Delete_Template:Google_Inc. and I suggest merging the two templates together, as stated on the votes for deletion page. –- kungming•2 | ^(Talk•^Contact) 06:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for showing me the discussion on Talk:Google#The_Google_Template_Box.

As for the changes (a more streamlined version) that you seem to favor - I'm all for it! Let's cut out stuff that's not relevant, I'm sure there's lot. I merged the articles as a start.

I merged the both templates to Google Inc. as the new template (even after it's made more streamlined) will include information that is related to the company, not the services part of it. Therefore it seemed like the right choice.

Also, before I merged them both (and changed the links) there was a mess, some articles used google services and other used google inc, when they were all about different services. At least it's not like that now!

To finish this up. I apologize for making these changes without consulting the community in a correct way - it was clumsy of me.- David Björklund (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup - but I think some links should be removed, as they don't really have anything to do with the company - after all, this is Google Inc.! All the things in here should have something to do with the company.

To remove: Google Hacks, Schnitzelmitkartoffelsalat (it does not have anything specific tie in to do with Google), the Google Summer of Code (if the Apple templates don't put the Macworld Expo on it, there's no need for this on a template), Miserable Failure (the same thing could turn up on Yahoo!, MSN, and Ask.com - not specific to Google), Urchin Software Corporation (listed under List of acquisitions by Google), ElgooG (does not merit inclusion in the Google template simply because of being a mirror), Google Space (a cafe is very out of place here), Googlefight (not affiliated with Google - gives the impression that it is since it's put in this Google Inc. template), Pyra Labs (same reason as Urchin software), Google Watch - it's actually a website critisizing Google, Google Current - has nothing to do with Google. Removing these links will go a long way towards improving this template. –- kungming•2 | ^(Talk•^Contact) 00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all links not pertaining to Google Inc. - after all, that's what the template's name is. –- kungming•2 | ^(Talk•^Contact) 01:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revenue for 2006

How come the template shows Google's revenue for 2006. Sure, this is probably an estimate made by responsible people, but it is an estimate anyway. And this a problem for a company that relies on technology trends that can change dramatically every quarter. So, shouldn't the revenue shown be the one reported for 2005? --Cryout 14:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Labs Products

I have removed the Labs products from this list, so that it can be easier to maintain. Labs products change often, and therefore it would be hard to decide which ones to include in the template.

(The link to labs is still there, though)

--Mambo Jambo 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green header too garish...

It seems as if the header on the top is a shade too bright - is it possible to tone it down a bit? –- kungming•2 | ^(Talk•^Contact) 22:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - what was really wrong with the old header? The green background is, as you say, garish and the different coloured for the logo are gimmicky. I don't know of any other corporate templates that have this sort of colour scheme. I think I'll change it back now - feel free to debate this if there's a good reason for keeping the current scheme! Jonohill 10:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks much better now. =) –- kungming•2 | ^(Talk•^Contact) 20:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Great job, I like the original header as well. --TBCTaLk?!? 01:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google logo at the header?

I am thinking that the transparent Google logo should be added to the the header but it seems that when I try to add it, the header color changes to gray. Any way to avoid it?

Michaelas10 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to have the Google logo on this template, but the logo itself is under a fair-use license, and therefore we cannot place it in the template - it would be a violation of the fair-use policies. I tried it before. –- kungming•2 | ^(Talk•^Contact) 14:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Returned specific width

I've returned the specific width script to shorten the template's width by 70%. The specific width is neccesery and effects a lot on the designing of the Google-releated articles that contain it.

Michaelas10 20:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked through a few Google-related articles, but couldn't find anyone which would suffer from the template not being 75% wide (as it currently is). While there is no "standard" width for footer templates, there seems to be quite a lot being either 100% or 94% wide. Best regards, Fred Bradstadt 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This template is quite larger than others and having this template 100% wide covers a large portion of the article's page. Michaelas10 21:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube

I removed mention of YouTube from the template. They announced the intention to purchase YouTube, but it hasn't happened yet, and is not yet a part of Google. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Now it is.--TBCΦtalk? 08:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, that is just the announcement. Until the deal actually closes, YouTube is not a part of Google. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To repeat myself, Google has announced an agreement to acquire YouTube. The acquisition hasn't actually taken place (yet). See their own press release [1]: "Both companies have approved the transaction, which is subject to customary closing conditions and is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2006." Perhaps we should allow the purchase to actually take place before including YouTube within Google's product set? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of product section

It seems like we're trying to cram a ton of info into this template. Why not remove the product info from this one and create a whole Google product template and just use this for the corporate info (like revenue, stock, history, logo, and the like)? It seems like it would be easier to read and get the information you're really looking for.--Joe Jklin (T C) 00:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for a separate product template. Either delete the products from this one, or keep it as it is. The List of Google products and Google services categories are good enough, and creating a Google products template would be completely redundant. The template is now a lot better than it was, but feel free to just have a link to the products list. --Mambo Jambo 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there used to be two separate templates, but they were merged together in the end. –- kungming•2 | ^(Talk•^Contact) 09:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Groups

Should Groups be moved out of search to the communication section? Behun 10:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Done :) Martin Porcheron 10:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google.org and .tld

Should we include The Google Foundation? Also, should all the different www.google.tld's be included? google.com seems English-centric.Stale Fries 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree about .org, disagree about .tld's: there are simply too many of them all to fit into one template. Besides, google.com is the main site and users from overseas usually get redirected correctly to the "right" local site upon entry. --John Seward 07:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the english wikipedia though se would shouldn't really need to link to other non-english tlds. Martin Porcheron ^{need help? just ask!} 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Checkout

I believe that we should add Google Checkout to the advertising section of the template. Does anyone agree? Behun 22:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Patents

Is Google Patents significant enough to merit inclusion? I don't know... thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Although Google is pushing Patent Search on their homepage, I don't think it is significant enough. I think Google is simply trying to advertise the service. Martin Porcheron ^{need help? just ask!} 13:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

• 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] FeedBurner

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Topics from 2008

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

• 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

[edit] 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

[edit] Topics from 2009

[edit] Display bug when corporate=no

{{Google Inc.|corporate=no}} exhibits a display bug at the top of the navbox:

{{Google Inc.|corporate=no}}

Could someone check what's wrong? GregorB (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• 02-Feb-2009: I have changed the template to temporarily skip the coding for the "state=" auto-collapse header, which has a new bug that has been displaying the following code at the top of the "Google Inc." navbox:

" style="width:100%;background:transparent;color:inherit;;">

The problem does not occur in versions of the template that don't have that coding for the "state=" parameter. I have also shortened the display of corporate data at the bottom of the navbox, showing the Employees date as "Sep. 30" and the website in small-font. Unfortunately, Wikipedia no longer quickly reformats articles that use templates, so the fix for corporate=no might take days to become effective in the various articles using Template:Google_Inc.

The impact depends on how many people read those various articles (of "corporate=no") during the next few days while those articles are queued for reformatting. I suspect that Wikipedia was overwhelmed with auto-reformatting every article that used a template. Some templates are used in like 50,000 articles, so it was formerly change-one-letter in a template, and Wikipedia had to reformat those 50,000 articles (as fast as possible). Now, it might take several days to reformat even 10 articles that use a common template. I'm not sure if there is a queued backlog of many 50,000's of other articles waiting to reformat, or if there is an intentional delay of several days. In early 2008, the queues-to-reformat had like 1-million articles scheduled/waiting for reformatting, but a 400-article template would reformat all 400 within 4 minutes of changing the template; however, I don't know how bad it has become since then.

Also, I wrote an essay, in February 2008, about Wikipedia having too many navboxes (as "WP:Overlink_crisis"), so the developers are aware, and hopefully, steps can be taken to make navbox fixes faster in the future. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! You also raise some good issues: everyone and their sister are now creating navboxes. As for the queueing problems, things have gotten worse, apparently because the current system is relatively crude (for an illustration, see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Job_queue_redesign). Hopefully this will be improved in the future. GregorB (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed bug when corporate=no

02-Feb-2009: I have pinpointed and fixed the bug which displayed internal CSS-style coding when corporate=no, such as:

style="width:100%;background:transparent;color:inherit;;">

The bug was introduced on 4-Dec-2008 (almost 2 months ago) when handling the autocollapse of stacked navboxes. However, only a few articles were affected, and those pages were long enough so that the style-display line was somewhat buried by all the other text displayed on those pages. The problem was caused by a very common issue called an "unclosed comment" in the internal HTML comments of the template. Several formal computer languages designed by experts since 1979 do not have unclosed-comment problems, but HTML was not designed by those experts, and the World Wide Web was basically "hacked" into existence in 1991, without using existing expert technologies from programming language design and typesetting. So beware unclosed HTML comments, likely to be around for many years to come: it's already been 19 years. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Subpage /Examples tests parameters

03-Feb-2009: I have created subpage "/Examples" to display examples of using the template or testing the parameters. The coding bug of 04-Dec-2008 could have been caught earlier if a formal examples test-page had existed, so I have created the subpage "/Examples" to be run whenever the template coding is updated, as a sanity check to ensure all options still work after the template is updated. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Retrofit talk-page year headers/subpages

03-Feb-2009: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.), in font size=3, to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year-headers helps to focus on more current issues as well.
Then I added the boxed "Talk-page subpages" beside the TOC, showing subpage "/Examples" (Article talk-pages often have subpage "/Comments" for quality-review notes). -Wikid77 (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Google TiSP

What about Google TiSP? Nobody added it. --Dima1 (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Google Ventures

Should Google Ventures be added to the template? --Tintero (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Y Ok, it's added. --Tintero (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template Changes

v • d • e Google   KM Advertising Ad Manager · AdSense · AdWords · Analytics · Checkout · Trends · Adscape · DoubleClick Communication Alerts · Friend Connect · Groups · Orkut · Gtalk · Translate · Voice Publishing Blogger · Jaiku · FeedBurner · Knol Search Audio · Books · Code · Images · Maps · News · Patents · Products · Scholar · SearchWiki · Usenet · Video · Web   Emporium / Governance Platforms Account · Apps · Base · Co-op · Gears · Health · Maps · Native Client · OpenSocial (Web: Calendar · Docs · Gmail · Groups · Picasa) Service Mobile · Bookmarks · JotSpot · (Map Maker / Panoramio) · Picasa Web Albums · Q & A · Reader · YouTube Software Desktop · Toolbar · iGoogle · Picasa Development: Code · Gadgets  · SketchUp · KML · Caja Roadmap BigTable · GFS · Chrome · Earth · Pinyin · Pack · PowerMeter · Updater List of acquisitions by Google   Developer Tools Server GWS · Search Appliance · MapReduce Web Guidelines · Sitemaps · App Engine · GData · Website Optimizer · Urchin Corporate Googlebot · Mediabot · Image Labeler   Others Topics Advertising Professionals · Library Project · Insights for Search · Sitemap index Programs Contest · Summer of Code · I/O · TechTalks See also Acquisitions · Bomb · Censorship · Current · Criticism · Earth Outreach · Foundation · Google China · Google.org · Googleplex · History · Hoaxes · I'm Feeling Lucky · Labs · Logo · Lunar X Prize · Products · Ventures · WiFi · Zeitgeist Motto: Don't be evil

[edit] Draft Version Commenting

If this is intended as a proposal then I disagree with it for several reasons. First because it is very cumbersome and will be difficult to use effectively for the average reader. Secondly the use of a section for "acquisitions" is a poor idea. A large amount of Google's current empire was bought, like YouTube for instance. You can't put a huge number of items in Acquisitions, as you might as well classify everything under "miscellaneous". Sorting by function, as is currently the case in this template, makes much more sense. The template deals with the whole Google empire, this navigation box does not have to differentiate whether Google developed something internally or purchased it - that is for the articles themselves to discuss. You are going to have to explain this in some manner if you hope to gain any consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you are new here, then. Normally most editors don't post a proposal on a talk page until it is ready for comment. I would suggest that you create an account for yourself and then develop this in your own WP:Sandbox and then bring it here for comment. Also please don't remove other people's comments, that isn't a good way to get consensus support for anything. - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I know how the procedure is done. I posted here, because I thought this template would only took 2 minutes to finish. But now the template is complete (only took 2 hours, it not that of a big deal). Besides, I already have a Sandbox on my talk page, before you notify me. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Okay, now let's see if there is any consensus support over the next few days from editors watching this page for substituting this new proposed templete in place of the existing one. - Ahunt (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that Google Guice and GWT have been added onto Template:Application frameworks. There is a consensus on that template that templates on programming language who have their foundations is at best keep it to their own foundation, plug-ins...etc template. While the rest is best suited for the minor programming languages. So this affect a lot of article so take note of that. Minor programming languages that have developement such as CMS, IDE haven't been discuss yet.

I have temporarily removed Google Finance and GOOG-411. Google Finance is temporarily removed, because it is still in beta stage and from the looks of the sites, we don't know is Google going to expand it into a websites network for each field of finance subfields + search engine or they are just going to keep it as a search engine. Also GOOG-411 is a 1-800 toll free number and I don't think they are any articles in Wikipedia that consider 1-800 as a "service" unless they have their subsystems like Lavalife for other features. For that part, citation should be provided in the article before placing it onto the template. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely don't like and have many questions (listed below): Behun (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• What does KM mean, it should be expanded?
• Publishing seems to be diverted between two sections of publishing and service? What makes them different, and why is knol in one and JotSpot (which should be called Sites), in the other? If they should be divided, should they be in the same major section (KM, etc...)?
• Google with the exception of Chrome, and Google App Engine, doesn't use public road maps. There should not be a section called roadmap.
  • How could gOS which is not a Google product be listed there?
  • How could Google Earth be on the roadmap when it is a fully featured product?
• Why is Powermeter listed which is a private beta product for probably a few thousand people or so, but Google Finance which is a multi-year product which is featured on Google's main upper menu?
• Why is the acquisition section not have a link to all the acquisitions? Why are other acquisitions not listed (YouTube, Feedburner, Google Docs with Writely, Picasa, etc...)?

I improve the version. Italics for acquisitions.

KM stand for Knowledge Management, I don't really know how to explain it, but look these 2 template for a head start, but please go read Publishing, Servicing and Web 2.0. Please stop getting them confused, esp not with Internet Culture, before commenting.

• Template:Computer Science
• Template:Semantic Web

Note the Roadmap just refer to the OS components, because Google seems to want an OS of their own.

I really think this proposal is just getting more confused and more confusing to potential readers as time goes on. Having reread it I don't understand what it is telling me. Where does the template indicate that italics=acquisitions? Why is it even important to show which companies or products were bought, as opposed to developed?

I would really suggest you take it to your own userspace and develop it and then bring it back here. As it is, it is not getting any support. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think at this point in time it is safe to say that there is no consensus to replace the current nav box with this proposal, but thanks for developing it as a concept. Perhaps with some more work at some point in the future it could be presented again. - Ahunt (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Google Development Layout

Guessmate only.

Computing Types	Examples
Desktop / Thematic Computing	Widgetry (Gadgets)
Green Computing	Search Appliance + PowerMeter
Location aware computing	Maps, Earth, Latitude (OpenStreetMap, WikiMapia) cf. Yahoo! Local
?(maybe) Library 2.0	Bilbilography + Library Project

Nearly all contents removed, because article already has the info. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this section about??? - Ahunt (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A layout guidance for people who are confused about how Google works, because Google are unlike most companies which develop easily understandable stuff like Frameworks, IDE or CMS. Each development is targeted for a specific industrial purpose. However, since that is pretty hard to explain it through the template. People can just look at this chart instead.

For Location Aware Computing, see Types of Computing Computations.

In a sense all KM companies do something similar, but rarely as massive as Google. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)