Template talk:Cite press release/Archive 1

Purpose (migration from Template:Press release reference)
press release reference   cite press release ---   -- Organisation            →  publisher Date                   →  date URL                    →  url Title                  →  title (required) → accessdate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookofjude (talk • contribs) 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Usage
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookofjude (talk • contribs) 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * title is required, the rest are optional
 * publisher: Issuer of press release
 * date: Date the press release was released on
 * url: Link to the press release if available online
 * format: Format; e.g., PDF. Don't specify for HTML (implied as default).
 * accessdate: Date when item was accessed. Use ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format.

Examples
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookofjude (talk • contribs) 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Press release reference migration
More examples may be found on the Migration test subpage.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookofjude (talk • contribs) 12:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Migration status
Migration using AutoWikiBrowser and migrate to cite press release completed (at 22:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)).

Deprecation tags have been added to Template:Press release reference. 22:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
With other citation templates, a URL link is generally presumed to be to an html web page, but to warn the user if another format is used (e.g. PDF, Microsoft Word .doc format etc) an optional parameter of format is provided (see Template:cite journal as an example) - anyone object to allowing this additional template markup here ? David Ruben Talk 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * sure, I could have sworn it was there already... Circeus 15:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK so done - let me know if my coding skills have gone awry and fails to work as it should David Ruben Talk 16:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Language
Can someone add language option to this template? —Jared Hunt October 6, 2006, 11:56 (UTC)


 * I second this request. I'd do it if I understood templates. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 20:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I figured it out. Done now. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Usage for company letters to selected members of the public
Sometimes companies send letters to customers or to members of a community affected by a company action. Such letters often do not appear on-line in their original form. Would this template be suitable for referrring to such original sources? User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 21:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the intent of citation is to allow an arbitrary reader to verify claims made him or herself. One may find books and archived news publications at a library, so it is worthwhile to include citations of them in a Wikipedia article, even if the article or book is not available online. But if a letter is not available to the general public, I would question its value as a source in a Wikipedia article. Remember that Wikipedia is not intended as a place for original reporting. -Pete 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote
This needs the "quote" field as well. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 20:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I figured it out. Done now. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Date format
Shoudn't the date be after the title like in the other citation templates? It would sure look better stacked next to the other citations... Anyone have any objections to this (for a reason)?

Timmmy! 01:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Template:cite journal places the date bewtween author and the title (yet most biomedical journals whould order as Author, Tital, Year, issue, :-) ) David Ruben Talk 03:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that, its pretty obvious. But why is it like that when even you say most citations use the format used by the other citation templates (news, journal, etc). Is there any reason this template should not be that way? If there is no valid reason, I propose changing all the templates in the purposes of comity. If the neccessary changes are not made, I will have no other choice but to fork the template(s) and continue from there. Timmmy! 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not beholden to external organisations or policies as to how it sees fit to do things. I think in part the choice of Author/date/title-etc was chosen as this is not so dissimilar from Harvard referencing which has this sequence. So by all means make the suggestion and lets see what others think. but not sure what you mean by forking - having 2 versions of things within wikipedia is not the accepted practice... David Ruben Talk 03:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I came here to ask the same question as Timmmy: Why is the date first in this template, when it is later in the more commonly used cite web and cite news? Can it be changed to be the same? --Scott Davis Talk 13:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

date wikilinks
I'm puzzled - this page says that "accessdate" should not be wikilinked, but that "date" may be. But this does not appear to be at the discretion of the user of the template, and in fact the way it works appears to be opposite what is recommended. Can/should that be fixed? I've seen this problem on the news and web citation templates as well. -Pete 23:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It means the template will add the wikilink to accessdate to provide formatting, so the editor calling the template must not wikilink it. The template does not do anything special with the date parameter, so it is at the article editor's discretion to wikilink it if required. --Scott Davis Talk 13:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On-line forums run by companies/organizations
There are cases where companies or organizations use on-line forums as vehicles for the distribution of official news. Consider for instance the link http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=49553 to a forum entry at the Internet Archive where the top item in the forum was composed by the founder of the organization and which content constitutes an official statement on behalf of the company. What is the thinking around considering such items as de facto press releases? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to News release
Is there any particular reason for this wikilink in the template? I'd like to propose removing it, since it majorly clogs up the Special:Whatlinkshere of News release, and doesn't seem to add much to the articles it's in. (WP:RS might be a good target for the link instead, except that we want to avoid self-references in article space, I guess). Thoughts? cab 06:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be preferable to just have it be a non-link. In fact, I think it's a little confusing for it to be a link - at first glance, it seems like it would be a link to the release itself. -Pete 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Vertical format
Could we put the vertical format of the template, along with the description of the different variables, on the main template page, similar to Cite news and Cite web? That would be quite helpful. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Small (spacing)
On Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway, the first ref is slightly out of alignment. I thought it was just the spacing so i changed that and it did nothing. Do you think this is insignificant? Simply south 00:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review article first.


 * Oops, i just discovered how to fix the error on the article and corrected it there. Simply south 15:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

PR distribution services
PR Newswire, Business Wire, etc. are publishers and distribution services for press releases. I believe they also sometimes author or edit the releases they publish. Should they be acknowledged somehow when it's their URL being referenced? If so, how? The examples show the "publisher" as only the originating organization, which IMHO is more akin to an author than a publisher. —mjb 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Automatic date wikilinking
—Random832 01:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC) editprotected

I would like it if this template automatically wikilinked the date parameter if it is in ISO format (for example, 2007-11-27). This has already been done on Template:cite web without any complaints (see the discussion at Template talk:Cite web), so I think it's safe to go ahead and tweak this template too.

Please change |&#32;.

to

|&#32;.

Thanks in advance! —Remember the dot (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Title being mis-italicized
The template automatically puts titles in italics. But press-release titles aren't in italics -- they're in quote marks, like magazine articles and newspaper articles. Could an admin please fix this, since the template page is protected? --24.215.162.198 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, when I see press releases cited in books, they say upfront that's a press release: John Doe Corp. press release, "First Quarter Profits Up". July 1, 2010." --24.215.162.198 (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

editprotected

Good point. Let's change:

}} " "" "&#32;""&#32;""{{#if: {{{format|}}} | &#32;({{{format}}})

—Remember the dot {{sup|(talk)}} 07:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * {{done}}. Hopefully third time's the charm. Gimmetrow 10:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor bug in web page for this template itself
This is just a minor thing, but Template:Cite press release (i.e., the web page for this template itself) starts off "Error on call to Template:cite press release: Parameter title must be specified". It is a bit disconcerting for someone who's just trying to read the documentation to see an error message right off the bat; can you please fix this? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

editprotected Will an admin please make the following two changes to implement the above request:

1) Change line 1 from

Thanks! RossPatterson (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Archive Function
Is it possible to add an archive functions like in  . Specifically, I am looking for the the function of  |archiveurl=  and  |archivedate= . Currently, if you link to a press release on a web page it is possible for the page to move and the link to be lost. If this function can be enabled it would be possible to keep links to archived copies of the press release even after the webpage moved. I am having to use   to cite press releases if I want to keep archived version.

Thanks, Ctempleton3 (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I went here to ask exactly the same! Now that I think of it by the way, what is the advantage of using this template in the first place, when cite_web and cite_press_release are doing almost exactly the same thing, with the latter one only having lesser possibilities? Cheers, Face 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I third this notion, having come here for that very request!--Dr. Ivo Shandor (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Editprotected request disabled for the moment. You gotta find someone to code this first, as it's a confusing / complicated template that's widely-used and admins don't like getting yelled at for breaking pages. :-) When there's working code in the sandbox, I'll happily sync it to the live template. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm done! Template:Cite press release/sandbox. Check it in action at User:Dr. Ivo Shandor/Sandy--Dr. Ivo Shandor (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice, but not quite the same as the version in cite web, cite news, cite study, and cite mailing list. In those, the link on the title is to the archived version, and the link to the orginal is on the text "the original" (e.g., ref #13 in Stuyvesant High School).  Your sandbox version has the archive link on "Archived" and the original link on the title.  Since the others have been around longer and are consistent, can you change yours to match them?  RossPatterson (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt I can get the code to work like that. Those templates handle the archive parameter in a very complex way: when there is an archived version, they flip the original URL into the archive slot and put the archive in the original slot. I did the best my skills will allow. Perhaps there's a kindly expert on this code who can help us?--Dr. Ivo Shandor (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure thing - I'll look at it later today. RossPatterson (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've updated the sandbox, and I think it's ready. How's this:
 * yields:
 * RossPatterson (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. Can we get an admin to swap the code from Template:Cite press release/sandbox to Template:Cite press release?--Dr. Ivo Shandor (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * RossPatterson (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. Can we get an admin to swap the code from Template:Cite press release/sandbox to Template:Cite press release?--Dr. Ivo Shandor (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ The syntax of the template looks a little wonky, but seems to work okay. Why is there an extra set of double curly braces around most of the template?  Let me know on my talk page if anything goes haywire.  —EncMstr (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It was there before, but the re-alignment of indentation makes it stand out like a sore thumb. The idea is to report an error if title is omitted.  It reads like this:




 * Basically an if found-then ok-else error scenario. RossPatterson (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hide the access date
We have a consensus that access dates for online copies of offline sources, while helpful as a comment in the source, should be hidden from the reader. Could somebody who is competent to adapt the citation templates please do so? The idea is to keep the access date as a template parameter but remove the code that displays it. Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

All it takes is to comment out this code:

--EnOreg (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (turning off editprotect for now) I have to strongly disagree with this request. Many press releases are made strictly online these days, and if accessdate is not available, then the citation is incomplete. The consensus that was derived can only really apply to citation templates that have no possible online-only source. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with this objection if there were no date given at all. What does accessdate provide to the reader that isn't already provided by the date parameter?--EnOreg (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The date the online release was accessed on? Useful in case the link ever dies, which is really the whole point of the field...so that should the website ever change or go away, a record of exactly when the link was last known to be valid is preserved and visible. Really, only Cite book, Cite paper, and maybe Cite journal and Cite conference should have this implimented.  Any other template is simply too divided between print and online-only. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What you describe is the accessdate parameter. In addition to that, the template has a date parameter that holds the publication date of the press release. This latter date is of course relevant for the reader. The accessdate, in contrast, is only relevant for an editor recovering a dead link. That's why I think we should keep it in the page source but hide it from the reader. --EnOreg (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all, they both serve a distinct purpose. Date is the publication date, accessdate is when it was accessed.  It is also relevant to the reader, if they too need to recover a dead link (at web.archive.org for example).  One of my concerns in this is that if accessdate is hidden to readers, this will eventually bleed over into editors not filling it out, thus removing it from the equation entirely.  I'm sorry, I just don't see why "Accessed on" is such an eyesore that it can't be displayed. I gotta sleep now! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Usage of template for vendor catalogs
What do you think of the notion that this template could be used to cite a vendor catalog as such a catalog constitutes self-publication for informing the public about the vendor and its products. I am not contemplating citing the Sears catalog, mind you, rather specialty catalogs such as those for scientific instruments (there are some very specialized dissection instrument catalogs) and US Philatelic, which is the US Postal Service's stamp portfolio catalog (an official publication of the Postal Service). Comments? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 21:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lacking a template, treating such self-published, self-promoting, business-use publications as press releases is an interesting idea.  The only problem that comes to my mind is that catalogs are extremely active, changing significantly from edition to edition, and that you ought to have a way to refer to a specific version of the document. In which case, cite book might be a better choice, as it has edition=. RossPatterson (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * point taken - thank you. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 10:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we need some author fields?
I noticed that some FDIC press releases list a person I believe is the author. Should we have fields for handling authors liek "author", "first", and "last"? An example where LaJuan Williams-Dickerson is listed as an author is here: http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2008/pr08099.html. If I am wrong about Ms. Williams-Dickerson being an author, please shoot down this request. Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking of dates is deprecated
According to MOS:SYL the wikilinking of dates is now deprecated. However, the accessdate field automatically wikilinks the date. Other citation templates, such as Cite web, have extra fields such as, accessdaymonth or accessmonthday and accessyear, as a work around for this. --JD554 (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

editprotected Per the above editor.— Chris! ct 20:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stifle (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's one way. But that just give an unlinked ISO date, ie accessdate=2008-10-24 give 2008-10-24. What other templates have is a field for accessdaymonth/accessmonthday and accessyear so you can use  to give   --JD554 (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would you need two more fields to supplement the single accessdate field? Nothing precludes you from using "accessdate=10 October 2008", now that linking has been removed. And, adding new fields won't matter to the ISO dates already beings used ;) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those ISO dates are now no longer converted to a user's date preference and are shown simply as YYYY-MM-DD, probably the worst of all options. By having the extra fields you can leave the ISO date to be converted and new instances of the template can use the new unlinked fields. The linked dates can then be gradually moved to the accessdaymonth and accessyear over time. --JD554 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:JD554 that accessdaymonth, accessmonthday, accessyear should be created. If no one disagree, I will request another protected edit.— Chris! ct 20:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be simpler to get all the Cite * templates delinked, and then get permission to run a bot and expand any ISO instance inside a Cite * template in-article? I think that would ultimately save time in the long run. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, the bot wouldn't know which articles need dd Mon yyyy, which need Mon dd, yyyy, or some other format. JD554, I disagree that this is the worst option. For non-logged in readers (most of them) and those without date preferences, those dates were already showing up in yyyy-mm-dd format, only now those dates aren't blue. I think it's fine to have accessdate unlinked, and editors provide whichever format they want there. I'd like to see this happen for the other Cite templates.  Pagra shtak  20:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

←I had a look at the first article in the list of What links here. If you look at the list of references at Academy Award you'll see the "Retrieved on" date is an ugly mixture of YYYY-MM-DD format and linked dates in either DD MMMM YYYY or MMMM DD, YYYY formats (depending on a users preference). Surely it isn't acceptable to have that mix and would probably be brought up at a FAC etc. Cite web and Cite news are just two templates that have introduced the accessdaymonth/accessmonthyday and accessyear work around. This means that existing instances of the templates with accessdate still show a proper date format as will newer ones. --JD554 (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That mixture existed before this change. The correct solution is to edit the article to create uniform date formats, not to impose linking in a citation template.  Pagra shtak  20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have suggested accessdaymonth/accessmonthday and accessyear if I was trying to impose linking. --JD554 (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You want to impose linking on the accessdate parameter. The way I look at it, we have two choices here. You want to make the main parameter in breach of the MOS, and create three additional parameters, two of which must be used in conjunction to enable a MOS-compliant workaround. My suggestion is the make the main parameter MOS compliant and be done with it—no extra parameters needed. I'm not convinced your solution is better.  Pagra shtak  12:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whichever solution is used should ideally be used in conjunction with other templates in the cite xxx family. I know that that cite web and cite news have already used the method I've described. I guess the correct course of action now would be to start a discussion at a higher level (I don't know where that would be) that would encompass all these templates. --JD554 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, accessmonthday was added to cite web for the specific purpose of having displaying access dates that would not be auto-linked (see Michiel Sikma's comments at the time and his implementing change). accessdaymonth was a subsequent addition to address Trevor MacInnis's complaint that access dates entered with accessmonthday weren't being displayed correctly.  FWIW, I believe both parameters were ill-concieved additions to the template, and were really just end-runs around the then-ongoing debate over whether dates should be linked or not. I don't recommend you replicate that experience.  accessyear was a holdover from the web reference template that cite web replaced, and really ought to be deprecated - by now, all cite web usages must certainly have full dates of last-access. RossPatterson (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But that also shows the need to take this discussion about how the unlinking of access dates should be accomplished to a higher level in order to encompass all citation templates. Does anyone know where that should be? --JD554 (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Title should not be required if a date is present
Some organizations do not list a title; only a date. Given the name of the organization, this is sufficient to uniquely identify the press release. --Adoniscik(t, c) 05:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

dots
The template currently renders the following: " Press release. . Retrieved on 2 " So with an extra space and dot after press release. That does not seem proper. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 01:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * . An update earlier today left a stray period. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a problem with the new functionality. First of all, the citation templates are not standardized (so cite press release shows "Retrieved on 2 January 2008" while cite web shows "Retrieved on 2008-01-02". Then it uses the "day month year" format, which creates a mixture in US-oriented (or any other, in fact) ones where the accepted date is "month day, year". Finally, it clashes in the template itself, when it shows the published date and the access date in different format. I would suggest going back to the old format. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Consistency with other Citation templates
Please replace the template with this version. The output will be the same, with the exception of the title, which will be formatted consistently with other citation templates. The edit will ensure that formatting remains the same across all citation templates. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  18:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This request seems completed. --fryed-peach (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Title italicized or not italicized
Description of requested edit: In threads (above) and  (below) there's consensus that the title of a press release should be displayed in quotation marks, not italics. It seems to be fixed in this revision, which should be implemented. JamesMLane t c 11:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Title should be in quotation marks, not italicized
The conclusion of the thread above,, seemed to be that the template should put the title in quotation marks. Nevertheless, it's still (or again) displaying in italics. Can someone fix this? JamesMLane t c 21:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I just noticed the thread immediately above. I don't know if the change referred to there was what put the title in italics. "Consistency" isn't the issue. Book titles are in italics while the titles of newspaper stories are in quotation marks. We should be consistent in always following correct usage. For press releases, that means quotation marks. JamesMLane t c 21:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is fixed in, which changes:
 * to
 * I've not tested the fix, so please do that before implementing the changes. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  23:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not tested the fix, so please do that before implementing the changes. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  23:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not tested the fix, so please do that before implementing the changes. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  23:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It looks good to me.  I tried your version in an article in this edit and the citation displayed properly.  Now I hope some admin will implement the change. JamesMLane t c 01:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the change. Ruslik (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is the "correct" way to make it use quotes. --- RockMFR 03:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No? Why not, and what would you recommend? Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  03:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The title should always be passed in through the title parameter. There should be a way to make citation/core use quotes instead of italics, as the same thing is being done by the periodical citation template. I'm reverting this change for now. --- RockMFR 18:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are plain wrong. The title parameter is only for  title of the article in the periodical (see Citation/core), which press release is not. For non-periodical works IncludeWorkTitle exists. Ruslik (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a semantic difference between the two, and Title is definitely what we should be using. A press release is not a "contribution, chapter, or other included work". --- RockMFR 19:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm incapable of following the technical talk. All I care about is how the press release titles actually display.  RockMFR, it appears to me that Ruslik fixed this, and you then reverted the fix because you think there's a better way to fix it.  Meanwhile, every citation using this template continues to display incorrectly.  How about if we restore Ruslik's implementation of Martin's fix, while research continues into alternative methods? JamesMLane t c 06:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've re-written the documentation of Template:Citation/core to reflect the way the template actually works. The desired output should be what drives our decision of which parameters to use. Please honour JamesMLane's request. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  14:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ArchiveURL not working
Okay, so the archiveurl parameter does not seem to be functioning. As seen below, both of the links go to the original URL, when the first should point to the archive URL. I'd fix this myself, but this new Citation/core meta-templating is way too complicated. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * . Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  05:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please unlink "Press release"
Please replace " " by " ". Rationale: avoid link clutter; linking terms whose meaning would be understood by almost all readers is useless (and in this case even confusing). --Lambiam 18:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I've done it. If anyone disagrees, please revert. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeating request to fix template
editprotected

As seen in two threads above -- and  -- it is agreed that the title of a press release should be displayed in quotation marks. Nevertheless, the template is currently displaying the title in italics. Would someone please fix this? JamesMLane t c 03:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. I hope I did this in the right way, but I think it's ok like this. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that seems to have done it. JamesMLane t c 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Press releases hosted or posted by 3rd parties
The issue raised above, Template talk:Cite press release has not been addressed. Many press releases are posted by third parties or released via agencies such as Business Wire, PR Newswire, or other press release agencies. This citation template still very much needs to be updated to account for this type of information. As it stands now, this template assumes that the author, distributor, and publisher are the same entity. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If another agency releases the press release, I typically style it like Microsoft via NewsWire. Thing is, with press releases, it isn't always apparent who exactly did what. Just use the above example, and don't worry about it too much. Now, I agree that first, last and author fields would be useful in case a specific person is credited. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, please implement author/first & last. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. DES (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Neither Italics nor Quotes for Title, Roman Only due to Unpublished
Hi, this has been discussed twice above already. However, Press releases are unpublished works in the sense of lacking an ISSN / ISBN / Third Party Publisher making them available as part of a works catalogue.

The standard for unpublished works has generally been in a number of major citation styles to produce titles in roman, eg. Fifelfoo (1989). Fifelfoo feeds a small dog. Press release.

This is used at cite report and cite thesis.

As a result I propose: thanks Fifelfoo (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * cite press release produces titles formatted in Roman without quotation marks.
 * I disagree. They may not be part of a "works catalog" but they are certainly published in the snse of being intentionally distributed to a wide audiance. This is the sense of "published" used in copyright law, for example. Many smaller commercial magazines have neither ISBNs nor ISSNs, so that cannot be a standard for being published. Stay with quotes, please. DES (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Source parameter
Can there be a "source" parameter? In, eg, there is a "work" parameter (for the organisation who did the work) and a "publisher" parameter (for the website/magazine etc who published it). Here, the "publisher" parameter is for who issued the press release, but if it is published somewhere else we can not cite that. See. The NZ Government issues the release, but Scoop published it on their website. So can there be another parameter created for this purpose (in the example it would be for Scoop)? Adabow ( talk )  11:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've disabled the editprotected request for now, as this is only appropriate when an implementation of your request is ready to apply (by an administrator unfamiliar with the template). I think that there is scope for a discussion of this proposal before it is implemented; my view would be that either Scoop have modified the original press release (in which case it is a news article and Template:Cite news is more appropriate); or the press release is identical to the release issued by the NZ government (in which case it is superfluous to mention Scoop; the original release could be cited, perhaps with a link to the version on scoop if an original cannot be hyperlinked).  Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  20:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revision with added parameters
I have created Template:Cite press release/temp

This revision implements the author, first/last, coauthors, first1/last1, first2/last2, and first3/last3 parameters. If none of the author parameters is specified, the publisher is listed at the start, as the author. If a specific author is specified via any of these parameters, the publisher is listed in the normal publisher slot, as for cite web or cite news

I have also added a new agency parameter, which is intended to be used for a distribution service. This matter is mentioned above in the and  sections.

I have also made the publisher parameter mandatory, displaying an error message if it is omitted.

I have also created the needed Template:Cite press release/temp/doc and Template:Cite press release/temp/docA pages with updated documentation, ready to be moved copied into place if this revision is approved.

Test cases can be seen at Template:Cite press release/temp/test (the testcases are based on actual references from an article I edited recently, just to have something to start from.)

I hope that people will agree that these proposed revisions are useful. Comments are welcome. DES (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been no comment, one way or the other. Does anyone object to my proposed change? DES (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't recall seeing press releases having individual named authors, but I don't see any harm in having the parameters available. I like the idea of having an agency parameter. In fact we might also want some variation on the newspaper/work parameter on cite news to reference the site hosting the press release (example would have publisher=British Airways | agency=GlobeNewswire | work=MarketWatch).  cite news also has a location parameter; many press releases start with a location as well (San Diego in the example I just linked), perhaps we should add that as well? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

deadurl parameter
Cite web has a "deadurl" parameter. Could somebody with more template know-how than I do implement it here, too? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Author name
There are no fields for the author in this template. I realize that press releases are often unsigned, but when they do have a named author it seems like we should include that info. Another editor raised this issue three years ago, but no one replied at the time. Template_talk:Cite_press_release/Archive_1 Are they any objections?  Will Beback   talk    03:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to include it as an option. Really, this template feels underdeveloped compared to the other Cite templates (see the section above for another example). –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Consistency issue
A request was made at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates to change this so it would achieve better consistency with cite map and cite report. In essence this means changing "Press Release" to "(Press release)". Please voice any objections.

Implementation-wise, simply replacing the text will result in another inconsistency - in the other cases a period does not precede the brackets. It can be implemented by adding (Press release) at the end of the title, rather than as the "series" variable. This has the added benefit of freeing that variable to be used for a series of press releases. Comments are very welcome. --Muhandes (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This template uses Press release. Using Press release would put it in parenthesis. To compare:


 * Cite press release




 * Cite book




 * ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, good think I asked before implementing it the wrong way. I guess I'll wait a few days and see if there are any objections to this change before implemented it. --Muhandes (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why Series was used and I can't find any discussion on it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Now in sandbox:



---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 17:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

✅ ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 23:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The title is now incorrectly displaying in italics and without quotation marks. I presume this is an unintended result of the last change. This problem has occurred – and been fixed – several times in the past, per Archive_1#Repeating_request_to_fix_template, Archive_1#Title_italicized_or_not_italicized and its immediately following thread, and also Archive_1#Title_being_mis-italicized. Nurg (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Double checked and APA does use quotes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 02:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Broken "archiveurl" parameter
An editor recently made this edit to Friends, indicating that the citation was a dead link. The link is not dead, instead it appears to be an error with this template being unable to properly handle archiveurl. This apparently is the result of this change to the template. As a result the original url is always used regardless of whether archiveurl is used:


 * Original citation -
 * With archiveurl set -

--AussieLegend (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 02:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What does format parameter mean?
It seems that the article doesn't explain it.--Gqqnb (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Been on my to-do list: documentation updated. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Camel-case
As "press release" is not a proper noun, the template should not display "(Press release)", but "(press release)". HandsomeFella (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * APA style is to capitalize; Chicago is to not capitalize (Chicago 14.213). The temple series capitalizes the type field. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * APA style is also to use camel-case literally everywhere ("How to Cite a Press Release in APA Style"). Wikipedia doesn't follow APA on using camel-case, so why should we follow them on using it for "press release"? HandsomeFella (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused as to what CamelCase is. Your example is title case. Your request is for lower case. Regardless uses sentence case for the type. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I know the difference, but maybe I was using the expression loosely. Sentence case is appropriate when there is a full sentence within the parentheses. (This is an example of a full sentence within parentheses, for which sentence case is appropriate.) As you can see, it starts with a capitalized first word, and ends with a period/full stop.
 * If there is not a full sentence (such as in this example), there should be lower-case. The words "press release" by themselves do not form a full sentence.
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If we change it here, we have to change it where used in other templates. Please continue at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)