Template talk:Social bookmarks

Non-free logos

I don't see any good justification for using non-free logos in this template. None of the services are the subject of the articles nor do the images help add context to the text of the article. Please remove them. Thanks, 98.31.12.146 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. They're fair use as representations of where the links lead you when you wish to share the article with your social peers. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

http://identi.ca

ShakataGaNai has suggested that we should make http://identi.ca work in a similiar fashion to how twitter works with the url shortener. But as i look at this template, its starting to seem a little full so i'm unsure if i should add any more sites. Anyways I'd like some general comments before i go adding another site to this template. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the additions and I actually think the template now has too many links. There are two "T" links in there - one for twitter, one something else. I'd stick to the 4 or 6 (max) top sites. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please add interwiki

Please, add the next interwiki: es:Plantilla:Marcadores sociales Shooke (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Tempodivalse [talk] 22:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Can I now expect to see people posting stories from es.wikinews on Facebook? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Twitter alt text

{{editprotected}}

When the Twitter logo is hovered over, the text "desc=Share on Twitter.com" appears. I doubt that the "desc=" is deliberate. Could an admin please fix this? Thanks! Dendodge _T\^C(en.wp) 14:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Tempodivalse [talk] 14:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

email this story

fr has an email this story link in their equivelent of this template IS that something we want to steal? Bawolff ☺☻ 05:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't think it would be a good idea. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. A number of people want to share a story, but aren't registered on any of these sites. Email is still the most popular form of online communication. May I ask, Brian, why you think this is not a good idea? Dendodge _T\^C (en.wp) 12:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It very much depends on the implementation, but in many cases a website's "email this article" link can be used as a form of spamming. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see how. If we use a mailto:example@example.invalid type link, its really up to the user who they send it to. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with implementing it.    Tris   19:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I support implementing this too, i agree with bawolff. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Open Share Icon

I think it would be more appropriate to use the Open share icon instead of as several of the services that are linked here are not exactly "social bookmarking" sites. What do you think? --ƒajro @ ♨ ★ 07:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest its one icon that means nothing to me vs another icong which means absolutely nothing. I'm neutral either way. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I vote we stick with what we got because at least the bookmark icon looks like something I know. Never even heard of the open share thingy. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 04:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Open Share Icon is supported by Ken Rossi (creator of the widely used OPML icons), Bruce McKenzie (GeoTag icons), and is used by hundreds of websites and applications including SmugMug (over 2 million users), NetworkWorld, AddToAny (#1 Wordpress plugin for sharing with over 400,000 plugin downloads), Shareaholic (over 1.2 million users), Weather Underground, and Princeton University amongst many others. Source: Wikipedia -- meattle 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of taste, I personally prefer the one we've got now because the bookmark picture looks more familiar - and I think it looks nicer. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to be my usual sarcastic and cynical self... Yay! Let's use it! One million lemmings can't be wrong. Seriously, I don't know, nor care, who Ken Rossi is, I've never heard of the OPML icons, and this is something I've never encountered on any other website. I recognise what we have now - it's a bookmark. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Drop Reddit

Per this, pointed out from Slashdot, I think we should drop Reddit. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

lol - they think it was someone with an account name xssfinder... If they havn't fixed their xss vulnrability we should drop. otherwise, I'm neutral. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Too many links?

I strongly suspect that this edit was required because there are now just too many sites linked to from this template.

I would like to propose looking at all the currently listed sites and gathering their pagerank/reader numbers/ComScore data to allow a couple of the less popular ones to be dropped. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 03:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to remove the last three; which I've never heard of.    Tris   07:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've made similar comments in the past, because this is where a few admins have added in ones they think we should have. The template originally started out with the same ones as the BBC, and, well, just growed. What I'm suggesting above is building a case for which to remove. I think there is a good chance that the data will back up your gut feeling on this. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the last three & technorati were all added by User:TUFKAAP on the 3rd & 4th of August.    Tris   07:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK; here are their respective Alexa traffic ranks.

• Facebook-3
• Twitter-14
• Digg-113
• Stumble Upon-294
• Reddit-470
• Delicious-520
• Technorati-641
• Fark-2749
• Simpy-11271

So, looking at these numbers-Fark & Simpy are pretty out of their league! Yahoo buzz can't be measured on this as it's on a subdomain of yahoo.com. I propose we delete Fark, Simpy & Yahoo Buzz from the template. Any objections or other comments?    Tris   07:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with that. A secondary consideration might be how we can automate getting stories posted to such sites. As I've said elsewhere, the automated posting to Facebook desperately needs worked on and fixed up; logically, such work should be reused to promote our material as widely as possible. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, if we can get someone to write a bot that could automatically post to these. I can have a look at it, but my Python coding is very basic at the moment! Anyone who would do that?    Tris   09:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'd suggest we remove the last two sites and Buzz, they're far less popular than any of the other sites. The others, Technorati and above, are popular enough to retain, i think. Tempodivalse [talk] 12:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Done and template restored to previous width. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Too few links

Popularity or traffic of those sites is not as important as 'shareability'. Why discriminate the users of the less popular sites? They don't need more free advertisement. The template should be a dropdown menu like ShareThis or AddToAny with as many services as possible to reach more people. --ƒajro @ ♨ ★ 23:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For one, due to Mediawiki design/WMF Security, we generally can't use theirs. That means we have to build it ourselves, which you might not realize, is a lot of work. If you have a service you like, why not add their button/addon/dodad to your browser. It is not feasible for us to support every-single-god-damn-site that does link sharing. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Google buzz?

What're your thoughts on adding something like http://mashable.com/2010/02/12/google-buzz-buttons-count/ or http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/10/google-buzz-button/ . Obviosuly without such large pics, but the coding is decent. Stepshep (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Simply because that isn't a real button, it is a hack that uses Google Reader (If you actually read the how to). Once someone comes out with a real button, then sure. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 08:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Now they have a not hack: http://www.google.com/buzz/post?url=<URL to post> --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 17:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Buzz enabled! --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Email this story - part deux

Well... stealing...I mean borrowing from fetch-comms page redesign, I have added an email this story icon to the template. I tried it a few months ago but it came looking funky and I gave up, thanks fetch-comms! Anyways, like it was mentioned we're gonna be stuck with underscores unless we switch to the toolserver link. Also, lemme know if there are page width issues... I increased the width by 2%. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the toolserver one will be better? This is an external tool, but it removes the underscores. Not a very big deal, though. —fetch·comms 14:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it has a bug, in which it removes the underscores in the links, so it breaks those too. Best to keep the underscores in both places than neither. —fetch·comms 16:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} There's a closing span tag missing after the email image. —fetch·comms 14:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Facebook 'like' button addition?

Can we add the Facebook 'like' button to the template if possible? Now we can customize a code on facebook, and if you hav Facebook i can make you an administrator for a short time to generate what you need and be done :P but if anyone knows a away around that I think we'd benefit more from both choices present. Most people will 'like' an article before posting to their walls. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No. There was a big discussion on wikitech-l about it; it goes against much of the privacy policy (and is hard to do anyway).— μchip08 22:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust...

On Friday, Yahoo killed off Yahoo Buzz!. As such, it's been removed from the template. That is all. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

OH NOZ! --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

LinkedIn and Newsvine added

Just added LinkedIn... don't know why we haven't added it. Considering it's ranked #17 on Alexa and it's one of the few social networks oriented towards professionals which a few of us Wikinewsies use, myself included. Also, kudos to LinkedIn for providing the straight share link on their developers site which saved me from having to dig around through query strings to find it. :)

Then there's Newsvine... which I guess you could say is Microsoft's social news site... since it's owned by msnbc.com, which is a joint venture between MSN and NBC (MS gave it's stake in cable network over to NBC). It's somewhat of a competitor because it allows original reporting. But hey, it allows to share links so that's fine by me. Although, it's not exactly highly ranked on Alexa (#2,476) but we aren't exactly faring that good either... since we're ranked #17,021. :( --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That color is hideous.

{{editprotected}} Why not changing the border color with this one (#a7d7f9)? It’s used in the border of all pages, combines with the Wikinews logo and it’s used in eswikinews’ and cawikinews’ corresponding templates. Fitoschido (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Trying it. I've put it in place, and we'll see how it wears. --Pi zero (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Buzzkill and plus

So yeah, back in October, Google announced they were killing off Google Buzz because well obviously, they now have Google+! Now that Buzz is gone and Google+ is up and running, we kinda don't have a way to link to it, because AFAIK, any sharing seems like it has to go through Google's +1 button... and so far, I haven't seen a link text-only version. So any potential workarounds? --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I should add that here is Google's site for making a +! button widget code blah blah blah... [1], as you can see... no text-only version... --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to this guy's nifty little hack, I was able to get the actual script link for the +1 button and now have added it as a way to share on Google+! YAY! :D --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Moar plus

{{editprotected}} Hey, I don’t want to +1 links, but to actually share them to my stream.

This code is simpler and removes the previous hack, this opens a proper share dialog and uses an icon from the Commons (duplicated here):

<span title="Share on Google+">[[File:Google+ icon red.png|Share on Google+|link=https://plus.google.com/share?url=http:{{fullurle:{{PAGENAMEE}}}}]]</span>

—Fitoschido ^[shout_track] @ 9 February, 2012; 00:16

• Done That was a double-plus-good little hack, thanks. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No need for JavaScript starting on MW 1.20

bug 23427 has just been fixed, introducing the {{PAGEID}} variable/magic word. This means that as soon as the next MediaWiki version is live (in the next couple weeks), this template won't require JavaScript anymore to shorten the links to use the wgArticleId as a way to generate short urls for Twitter (by the way, shouldn't the identi.ca link get the same treatment?). On the other hand, I believe now twitter automatically shortens URLs so maybe either approach (javascript or the new {{PAGEID}}) are useless. But even if that's the case, I guess it would still be useful for people browsing without JavaScript. --Waldir (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Google+ logo update

{{editprotected}} Google+ logo to be updated File:Logo google+ 2015.png
acagastya 11:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have doubts. The old icon seems much more readable at 16px, to me.

--Pi zero (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards doing it; it's not our fault Google made this error. They must have realised websites would scale it down to a button. We can only faithfully reproduce the logo. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Done BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

45% width issue in mobile site

Flagging it so that we don't forget this one to be fixed.
acagastya

Telegram link

Please add an option to share the articles on Telegram. The sharing link for telegram is of the type "https://t.me/share/url?url=<FULL_URL_HERE>".
acagastya 09:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Google+ is dead

Google+: “Google+ was shut down for business use and consumers on April 2, 2019.” M!dgard (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

As a doornail. Axed. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Twitter link doesn't work

The Twitter share button is not working, at least under the new interface. I'm not sure how to update it, however. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Spanish WN has this: link=//twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=http:{{fullurle:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}&text={{urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}&url=http:{{fullurle:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}&via=wikinoticias --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Axing a few sites

Hello all, long time, no edit (and see)

• Delicious was bought by Pinboard, another social bookmarking service in 2017 and shutdown. The link redirects to an "app" in the Chrome webstore, because they stopped using delicious.com and went back to del.icio.us in 2016, which is redirecting to a HTTP 500 error.
• StumbleUpon was shutdown and turned into a website called Mix, we could add it or we could not.
• NBC News shutdown Newsvine in 2017, redirects to NBCNews.com now.

I've removed them all, (and reduced the width to account for the lack of icons) and just need it to be reviewed. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sighted. (Waves to TUFKAAP.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Digg

{{edit protected}} Not sure how/why this is still here in 2019 but Digg long ago stopped being a social bookmark sharing site a la Delicious or Reddit. They even explicitly say don't contact us. Please remove. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Done but needs sighting. --Green Giant (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sighted. --Pi zero (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit

A contributor has requested that an edit be made to this protected page. Once this request is completed by an administrator, please remove this template. You may wish to ask for the help of a volunteer to make your requested edit.

A contributor has requested that an edit be made to this protected page. Once this request is completed by an administrator, please remove this template. You may wish to ask for the help of a volunteer to make your requested edit.

This template, very visible through its use on {{publish}}, uses outdated logos. Asked42 created this as an update, also incorporating Telegram, which has become widely used in the last couple years. I've adjusted the mobile version so the icons aren't being crushed against the left border, as they are on the production version of {{social bookmarks}}. Heavy Water (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this template appears on articles going back to 2004. While I don't think server load is something we should be worried about (it was a long time ago) and Asked42's update looks much better, I think we should be careful in making changes so we aren't constantly tinkering. Are there other social media platforms we should consider including? I'm thinking Threads (social network), Mastodon (social network). Maybe WhatsApp, WeChat. Thoughts? SVTCobra 17:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

No objections to including the suggested platforms, but I also propose that we consider platforms that won't become unpopular in the future. We often see new social media platforms emerge and then fade out. Lastly, as it is one of the most widely used templates, I think the community needs to engage in the discussion. Currently, I don't sense any editors are interested in this case. By the way, it's great to see you becoming active again. Asked42 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There is more interest. There is a brief and similar conversation that sprung up at the parent template {{publish}}. I like the version proposed by Asked42. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

WeChat is worth considering, given that Hong Kong ranked third in the world for sources of en.wn page views in June and, per a Statista survey, WeChat has a fairly high penetration rate there. WhatsApp seems like an obvious pick, now that you mention it. It might be better to wait with Threads, considering how new it is. Heavy Water (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, after a brief overview, it seems like WeChat does not support URL schemes for external sites to share content or articles, except possibly for some whitelisted sites. Asked42 (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)