Template talk:Press

Possible parameter: dead-url = no
Can we add a parameter similar to the one that can be used with ? In other words, if the original link to the media article still works, but a link was added to the archived page anyways, then the main link would point to the original page. Paul (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As first proposed above, could I kindly request we please add  parameters? Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Primefac (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 July 2018
This template is used on talk pages to record instances of the articles being used as a source in the press. It apparently was originally used for coverage about WP and still has vestiges of the old usage. The template creates a link (labeled "details") to Press coverage 2018. This should be changed to Wikipedia as a press source 2018 (for the current year).

The documentation includes: "An optional unnamed parameter allows you to customize the name of the link to Press coverage. For example, it may be more accurate to read 'mentioned unfavorably', in case the original article becomes unavailable."

This can be removed entirely as I don't see how it is currently applicable; no reason to update the link.

The whole template should probably be renamed from press to press source to avoid confusion. MB 19:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Cabayi (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC Announce : Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram?
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram regarding using Breitbart as a source. Your input would be a big help in reaching a consensus on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The "details" link in the template
This link may have made sense once, but now it appears slightly missleading/annoying. The common thing to find if you follow it is either no details or the same info.

My suggestion is that we either remove it or rename it to something like "More YYYY WP-press". Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove the "details" link (changed to Rename; see below): I recommend removing the "details" link from the template because the "details" link points to Press coverage (or rather to the related year-specific pages such as Press coverage 2020), which serves a different purpose than this template. Press coverage explains: "This set of pages lists press coverage of Wikipedia that mentions or discusses Wikipedia as a project – that is, any aspect of Wikipedia overall, such as its structure, success, information, goals, history, or views on Wikipedia in general, and so on. Press sources that reference content of a particular Wikipedia article but do not discuss the project itself should be noted on the talk page of the referenced Wikipedia article using the template Press."


 * Press coverage is for press coverage about the Wikipedia project in general, whereas this template is for press mentions of particular Wikipedia articles. The following recently-active editors of this template may be interested in this issue:, , , , , , . Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * As someone who edits "Press coverage" a lot, those pages make no effort to exclude articles about specific WP-articles, they are happily included (also, "big-picture" items will often mention specific articles, one example:). "Exclude" is what WP:PRESS states, but it is not followed, and I don't think it has been followed for a long time. I have to say, I never noticed that, can't remember anyone mentioning it. This template and those pages have a clear relation, which is why I mentioned renaming the link as a possibility. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, "article-specific" items seems to be a clear minority. Skimming through the current WP:PRESS 20 I make it 3/23. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Remember that in the WP:RFC at, it was decided to mark all Wikipedia as a press source pages (see PressSourceYYYY for a list of them) as historical. I opened that RFC by saying (in part): Press coverage and related Press coverage YEAR pages listed in PressCoverageYYYY, for press coverage of Wikipedia as a project (rather than of individual Wikipedia articles), is actively maintained. I didn't make that up; I was just referring to what it said at Press coverage. You responded to that RFC and you didn't say anything about it being inaccurate. So now all the Wikipedia as a press source pages have a Historical template that says: "Use the Press template to add press coverage of a particular Wikipedia article to that article's talk page, and use Press coverage for press coverage of the Wikipedia project in general."
 * Nevertheless, I don't think there is any problem with including press coverage of particular Wikipedia articles in the Press coverage PressCoverageYYYY pages as long as the coverage is more than a passing mention. (We discussed this last year at .) There may be a continuum of press coverage from (1) passing mention of one or more Wikipedia articles to (2) significant coverage of one Wikipedia article to (3) significant coverage of multiple Wikipedia articles to (4) coverage of the Wikipedia project in general. Press coverage that is toward the passing mention end of the spectrum should only have a Press template on the relevant article talk page, whereas coverage that is more toward the significant coverage end of the spectrum could also be listed in the Press coverage PressCoverageYYYY pages. Obviously some editor judgment is required. Does that sound accurate?
 * Articles that have the Press template on their talk page could be anywhere on that "continuum of press coverage" that I mentioned in the previous paragraph, but articles that are listed on one of the Press coverage PressCoverageYYYY pages should only be toward the significant coverage end of the spectrum. At least, that seems to be the consensus as I understand it. (I am not actively involved in maintaining those pages.) Biogeographist (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Rename the "details" link (changed to Remove; see below): I just struck my Remove !vote above, because after looking at some examples of Press templates, I decided that the link does serve a useful purpose of directing people to more press coverage of Wikipedia during the same year, but the link is not about "details" of what is in the Press template. I would rename the "details" link to "More press coverage of Wikipedia during YYYY". Biogeographist (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * (ec) We seem to agree, passing mentions is indeed something I try to exclude from press coverage but not press-template, is a good example (and here  is something I added to both page and template). The template also has a link to WP:PRESS, so  the YYYY-pages are one click away. Removal is fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The template also has a link to WP:PRESS, so the YYYY-pages are one click away. That's a good observation. On talk pages that list many instances of press coverage from the same year in Press, a link to "More press coverage of Wikipedia during YYYY" after each instance could be very repetitive/redundant. So now I am leaning again toward removal of the link. Biogeographist (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove the "details" link, especially because it is redundant on talk pages that list many instances of press coverage from the same year in Press, and because (as noted): The template also has a link to WP:PRESS, so the YYYY-pages are one click away. Biogeographist (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is the easy way to go. Taking Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War as an example, a renaming as discussed would also require "details" to change name depending on what YYYY it's linking to. Probably possible, but maybe quite bothersome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove per above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Per above discussion, please remove "details" link from template. In short, link is misleading/annoying since you will not get any "details" about the press-item in question, and the template already links WP:PRESS which is very close. More input was asked for via pings above and notices, but none was given. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have edited the sandbox in line with what I think you are asking. Please check /testcases and confirm if this is the correct change &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks fine to me., any comments? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks good. Biogeographist (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , go for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Subscription required
How can I make use of ?  Schwede 66  10:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We would need to establish consensus here for adding a url-access parameter to the template just like the one in citation templates as described at, and then we would make an edit template-protected request here. I support the idea. Biogeographist (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I see no reason not to add it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would seem a good idea to inform readers of a paywall as most would not have to click the link only to find out that they cannot get to the target article.  Schwede 66  09:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Should we use the text or the set of symbols with Template:Closed access, etc.? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would recommend the symbols listed at, as in citation templates, as much more compact than "subscription required". Biogeographist (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion toward the end of the archive that would propose to remove this bad pass-through implementation of the cite templates and instead allow a list of citations to be added directly into the page of interest. I will look at implementing that personally... :) --Izno (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be great! Biogeographist (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 January 2021
Please add a Category:Articles mentioned by the press (cat doesn't exist yet) in 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 03:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please identify the value for this. As of today, you can find the same with Special:Search/hastemplate:"press". --Izno (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

BRD on specific use of this template
If you have an opinion: Talk:Dark_Emu_(book) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Can this template be used for articles on other language Wikipedias?
It has been reported in many press articles that the Russian government blocked Wikipedia because of the ru.wiki article corresponding to Cannabis smoking. This is described at Censorship of Wikipedia. Can the  template be applied on the en.wiki talkpage? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use Press on Talk:Cannabis smoking to reference an article about the ru.wiki article, since the different language wikis are separate projects. Often the article content is very different between different language projects, so they are not the same article unless one was translated from the other and has not been considerably altered. Biogeographist (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Confused by an argument regarding this template -- am I missing something?
On the talk page for the infamous MKUCR AfD, there is a section here in which people are exchanging words about this template rather ardently. I have read through the discussion, tried to understand the major points being made by each side, and am unable to piece together what the issue is.

My understanding of this template is that it's meant to be used to indicate that some article, or talk page, or projectspace page has been the subject of discussion in some kind of non-Wikipedia media outlet (whether it's the New York Times, the Podunk Picayune-Chronicle, or whatever) -- partly to say "gee whiz, look how popular this article is", and partly to say "heads up, a bunch of people here are probably here because of this article". These two things would seem to be true in any circumstance, including if the news outlet was trash (insofar as a trashy news outlet can still have lots of readers and influence). However, in the documentation of this template, it seems to emphasize that it should only be used for mentions by WP:RS. If this is true, how and why did this come to be the case? And what purpose does the template serve (since this seems to run counter to what I thought it was for)? jp×g 12:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've generally used this regardless of how reliable we consider the coverage to be, provided we have an article on the publisher or it drove significant traffic to the page. This is, as I've seen from reading the documentation, not in line with the current documentation. I did some research and the change was made in 2018 as a result of this discussion. There wasn't a strong consensus for this change, though it wasn't disputed by anyone there -- the general reasoning was due to WP:BLP concerns. I think a reasonable middle-ground would be to change the phrasing to something like
 * Thoughts? Pinging (from the VPP thread). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me, as it seems to me like it cures a bad symptom (i.e. plastering an article titled "Wikipedia Editor JPxG Revealed To Be Total Piece Of Shit" from best-celeb-news.biz at the top of a talk page) while avoiding bitter medicine (i.e. interminable RS disputes being rehashed on every talk page where this is used). jp×g 01:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong feelings about it; this seems like the kind of thing where we could bikeshed endlessly about guidelines without actually creating a better editing environment. Notices about "a bunch of new people are probably coming through" could also be made with Controversial, Canvas warning, etc., if the attention is coming from some place that we really shouldn't link back to. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the 2018 discussion you linked was inspired by this discussion. Your suggested text is ok to me. When I add this template (and I do), "this could inspire/interest/amuse someone" is my bar, pretty much. Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack has some really good ones, a bit hidden. I don't add OUTING (seen it happen in all kinds of sources, including WSJ and Haaretz), blog-looking stuff or blacklisted stuff. Most often it's uncontroversial/meh, but sometimes there's discussion
 * The arguments here may be of interest: Wikipedia_talk:Press_coverage_2018. Another place to add stuff is Wikipedia in blogs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Well...RS doesn't apply on talk pages, but BLP does. I mean...someone can upbraid you for trying to make an argument using a bad source, but it's not like BLP where violations can be outright removed, even if they're on talk and not on the article. WP:COMMONSENSE is a pretty good standard here. We don't want to link to every blog and personal website. The source does need to be of some importance, even if it's of low reliability. But we do often get coverage from popular but unreliable sources, often specifically because their feeling are hurt because we pointed out how unreliable they are.
 * Probably for me the main importance of the template is a reminder that people are watching, and this isn't taking place in a vacuum. So please be on your best behavior and that would be great.  G M G  talk  12:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * A very similar situation to the one described above has occurred again (and with the template documentation being again referenced as a rationale for edits), so I came here to open a discussion about it, only to find that I had done so some eight months ago and apparently forgotten about it completely. Since there seems to be a fairly broad consensus here that the primary purpose of this instruction is to prevent linking to BLP violations and attack sites, I think it makes sense to update the documentation accordingly. jp×g 02:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am going to add another clarification, since apparently people are still arguing about this, and the consensus still exists here:
 * The use of this template does not mean:
 * Everything linked to in this template is true.
 * Wikipedia is officially declaring the websites in it to be reliable sources.
 * Wikipedia is officially declaring the websites in it to be "news outlets", an official categorization that is more prestigious than "websites".
 * jp×g🗯️ 19:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm late to this discussion, but I concur with 's view and think wording is great.  Sdkb   talk 19:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Support author-link parameter
In the usage of this template at Talk:Taiwan, the first news article listed displays an error saying "author has generic name". Help:CS1 errors says the solution to this is to use the  parameter to link the author's Wikipedia article, instead of including the link within the   parameter. However, it seems like you can't do this with the Press template because it doesn't support the author-link parameter, even though the underlying cite news template does. Would it be possible to add support for this parameter to the Press template so that this error can be resolved? Thanks. – numbermaniac  15:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The way this template is currently coded, basically replicating all the parameters in Cite news, is a horrible way to do it, and is guaranteed to lead to issues like this. I'd suggest we re-code it to instead rely on Module:Template wrapper. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Support regular citations
Wouldn't it be easier if this template just supported regular cite web templates, like refideas does? czar 01:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It definitely would, but I'll be damned if I am going to go rewrite it myself. jp×g

I just browsed to this talk page to make this suggestion without realizing I suggested it a year ago... 🙊 If I had to mock it up myself, it would be similar to but in that case I imagine we'd need some kind of bot cleanup to convert the old templates to the regular citation format. Either way, it's a job. czar 19:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That would definitely be good for simplicity! If you want to mock up a sandbox, send us a link and we can implement! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Single media organization with multiple articles
Hello. Is it possible to use this template for multiple articles published by a single media organization? I read the doc, but did not find this info. When I add more titles, it always switches to plural. --TadejM my talk 15:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

No collapsed argument
This template no longer takes a  argument. Should this be changed, or should the documentation be updated? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)