Talk:Site map/Archives/2013

terminology, or lingo

• I see the term "section" used repeatedly in LinuxQuestions.org, but not here. Can this be addressed ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sitemap and sitemaps

See my commment on Sitemaps talk page. Acaciz (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Flash site example: include link?

I have been discussing with DShantz (talk · contribs) whether the example of sitemaps over flash sites should be an actual, working example for a live site, specifically the website of DShantz' company, as in here, or, alternatively, whether example.com should be used instead. DShantz makes the valid point that the example could be more useful if visitors can see what site the example sitemap is for. He argues that the link is in no way intended for promotional effect, that it is "as if we were uploading an image which we have the rights to, to illustrate this fairly complex subject by way of example". I, in my usual grumpy style, hold that it is still a conflict of interest, and while I assume good faith, I can't ignore that an employee of a company wants to link to his company's site, when that site is not even about sitemaps per se. I also wonder if WP:MANUAL comes into play.

While we have been discussing on my user page, I think this is more appropriately debated here, where it has higher visibility. I would appreciate if people could review our discussion so far and add some consensus in either direction. Haakon (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of the Value of Some Limited External Links

WOW - I'd never seen a talk page like this - what an elegant way to set up a discussion, Haakon. To my mind, this gets at a bigger issue. There should be some sort of balance between the value of using the avaialble external links afforded by always-connected web, and efforts by a few to use Wikipedia for self promotion. I think the test should be if the advantage favors the experience and clarity for the reader.

On this example, we really are only trying to help people understand XML sitemaps, This referenced site is unusual in that it is a. very short (allowing the entire sitemap to take up very little space) and b. Uses Flash based navigation (particularly pertinent as Flash is a strong User Interface tool, but effectively disables the ability for search engine bots to parse complete sites without a sitemap). So this is a unique solution, that is common practice amongst advanced users and that defines XML SiteMaps using a working example. Seems perfect for WIkipedia, and we are happy to offer up this example for the education of people who are if anything our competitors in the marketplace. (truth be told it is a bit of a point of pride that we have mastered this - but its a fairly small reward - my MUM checks this page regularly) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DShantz (talk • contribs) 20:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)--DShantz 05:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Google sitemap too prominant?

It seems that the article as it currently stands is dominated by the Google site map example. I think that Google affords an ideal example, in that it is a brand known well, and it provides a very clear and accessible graphic; however, the image currently occupies the larger part of the article as it appears on a 1280x1024 screen resolution. This could be usefully altered without being to the detriment of the article.

A VOTE FOR THE LIVE EXAMPLE

I think the link to a working example of a Flash site makes much more sense than the generic example that its been replaced with. Why not use the fact that Wikipedia is on the web to take the reader to SEE what this looks like. If seems this magnity site is the perfect short example. They don't seem to be selling site maps etc. I think its the exception to the rule.
FBIMON (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Re The line: "These site maps are often used to show an index for users that belong to the YLC"

What on earth is the YLC?

* The Young Liberals of Canada ?
* Young Leadership Council ?

citation needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.103.27 (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No citation needed. It's just incompletely removed graffiti. [1] Hans Adler 18:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)