Template talk:Press/Archive 1

Discussion
Do we really want to require section? After all, once the reference is more than a year old, the section will presumably be gone. - Jmabel | Talk 02:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's an inconsistency amongst Press coverage, Wikipedia as a press source, etc; some archive annually, some don't, and I'm not sure short of requiring substitution what the best answer is. It would be easy, technically, to make section an optional parameter though.

Mzoli's
This article's talk page does away with this template completely apparently opting for a custom solution. Does this suggest that this template needs to be improved or developed? __meco 11:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Template needs work
This template needs work. If one of the fields is missing, everything shows up as garbage. It should be designed more like an infobox template in that if a field is missing everything still shows up properly. Badagnani (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

please define "mentioned by a media organization"
For example: a contestant on Jeopardy! mentions that her own Wikipedia page has been subject to a deletion debate. Does that warrant placing press on the Talk page of her article? See discussion at Talk:Larissa Kelly. Another example: a celebrity such as Steve Martin goes on a late-night talk show and mentions that he frequently edits his own Wikipedia page. Does that warrant placing press on the Talk page of that article? --Mathew5000 (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional unnamed parameter
What's the name of the optional unnamed parameter??? Why mention it and then not tell us what it is? Additionally, since Press coverage has been split up into separate years, the  parameter needs to be updated so we can link to the relevant YEAR and section. (see ) -- OlEnglish (Talk) 20:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:High traffic TfD
The related template high traffic is currently at TfD (templates for deletion). Any input would be useful. --Cyber cobra (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

New parameter
Would it be possible to add an optional  parameter? The idea is to allow users of this template to add a suitable quote from the press coverage and have it displayed under the other info. It could be used like in this recent edit and would appear like this:

I think it would be a useful extension to the template, but I lack the template skills to add this without disrupting the proper functioning of the template. Astronaut (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I wanted to use a quote in the template (which prompted this request). Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated my example above to work with the new Press template and without Press/row. The new template format also makes it easier for a non-expertlike me to add the quote parameter (though with less control over its placement).  So, should I add the   parameter?  Astronaut (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it! Nsaa (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated the template . Nsaa (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

New parameters
Is it possible to also add the archive parameters (archiveurl and archivedate) and accessdate as in the cite web template? ? Nsaa (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * archiveurl =
 * archivedate =
 * accessdate =
 * Added the parameters as optional. Nsaa (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Use in Wikipedia Press Coverage
This template is used on the Press coverage pages (2007 onwards) where a news item appears repeatedly in many news channels. However it does not fit exactly as the text generated says "This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:". In this case it is not the page which has been mentioned but a news topic. Can I ask that the text be changed to be more universal eg.

This topic has been mentioned by multiple media organizations

This item has been mentioned by multiple media organizations

ditto ....subject....

ditto ....matter....

If there is no acceptable universal word perhaps we need a cloned template or a switch in the template to define the right wording. Lumos3 (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any discussion on this I'd like to propose that the template is cloned to one that says :


 *  This topic has been mentioned by multiple media organizations 


 * The clone to be called Press2. is there anyone with the skills to do this? Lumos3 (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no need to fork the template for such a trivial change. I've added a new  parameter to override the topic word and changed the default from "page" to "article". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Can "author" params be made optional?
I just used this template at Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation, and discovered that if you use the "author" parameter for one source, the subsequent "author2" parameter is required, otherwise you get a display like this:

I put "staff writer" in the field as a stopgap measure, but it would be good if there were a way for the template to work around absent parameters for cases like this (in this case, the BBC article is uncredited). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see any reason why not to make all of the attributes optional. Check the sandbox code out:
 * How's that? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How's that? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As there's been no opposition, I've synced this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what was done, but it definitely should not look like it looks at the Talk:BP. Beagel (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Controversial
This template proved controversial at. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Date formatting
Date formatting can be surprisingly controversial, and the Wikipedia community has repeated resisted efforts to impose one scheme or another. So why does this documentation mandate YYYY-MM-DD format? --BDD (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and removed it, seeing as the template uses the cite web/news template directly without any other purpose. --Izno (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple not working?
Added Press at Talk:List of common misconceptions with two entries, but it's reporting "a media organization", singular. My error somewhere? --Lexein (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Followup - I looked at the source, and if a 2nd media source entry has a date2= but no author2=, (as in most BBC articles), the #if condition isn't satisfied. My fix is to shift the braces in Template:Press/sandbox. See Template:Press/testcase. Edit request - I could boldly make the change, but I'd prefer a doublecheck by somebody before doing so. --Lexein (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge
On 23 November 2013 TfD discussion about merging online source here was closed with merge resolution. Sandbox of this template contains the version of this template with support for parameters from online source. The effect of the change may be examined on template's testcases page. Note: online source can't be just redirected here after implementation of changes from sandbox, because parameter 1 (first unnamed parameter) has different roles in these templates. A wrapper with tracking category would be required in place of online source until things will settle.

You participated in TfD discussion, so I assume that you might have an opinion on this merge. Comments from everyone else are also welcome. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Was the category situation ever sorted out. I don't remember well, but it looks like most of the support was based on a CfD being carried out as to what to do with the categories.  I'm in a rush now, so I don't have much time to look at the sandbox, but I'm wondering how this was dealt with.  How about the other two templates mentioned, are they being merged as well.  The closer just said merge, and by the end there were four templates and at least a couple categories. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Both templates use Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press since January 2014, so situation with categories is long sorted out. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , what about the other two templates mentioned? High traffic and Notable citation? — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 15:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Did not look into them – they were indeed only mentioned, and their merge was not explicitly approved in that TfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Collapse broken?
Looks like the merge broke the collapse parameter? — Strongjam (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It did. Tmbox, the standard talk page notice meta-template, which was used by Online source, does not support that option; previously, this template was a wikitable. Alakzi (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2015
The template adds a "details" link to Wikipedia as a press source 2015 (or whatever the specified year is) but that page is only for media mentions which use Wikipedia as a source of content. I think the "details" link needs to go instead to Press coverage 2015, which is for media which is about Wikipedia itself.

128.100.3.43 (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thank you. Alakzi (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

New parameter to identify the state of the article at the time of the publication
I just used this template on Talk:Neuroticism. (It looks like I should've use the multiple version but I haven't yet sorted out how to do that. However, that's unrelated to my point here.)

The entire point of both of the articles is that substantial editing of the Wikipedia article has taken place. I suggest that we should include a parameter for the perma link (old ID number) to identify the version of the article at the time the media article was published. In this specific case, we should also have a link to the version of the article prior to the beginning of the edit war although I understand that there might be some subjectivity.

My suggestion is that one link would point to the article on the day before the article is published in the second would be a good faith selection of the ID associated with the article before the edit war commenced.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We could probably auto-generate a link if date is added, which I would guess it is in most cases. --Izno (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Cool idea. --Andreas JN 466 20:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In principle this is good, but there can be many versions of the article around the time of publication. The journalist or this Damore guy might even have looked at some past version of the article for their research. How do we know which is the correct one? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 22:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not freeform citations
Any reason why this template uses proprietary reference generation? Why not just let editors dump a regular cite web and call it a day? czar 04:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Change "press" to "media"
Right now this template is called "press" and generates a statement saying "This page has been mentioned by a media organization".

Instead, this should be a template for noting when any publication discusses a particular Wikipedia article. For example, research publications often feature individual Wikipedia articles as case studies. I just came here because a contemporary nonfiction book has some insightful comments about a particular Wikipedia article.

There is not a benefit to restricting the use of this template only to press. I have not thought through whether there might be other reasons to separate various media analyses of Wikipedia articles. For now, I am just posting a note here to suggest that maybe the title of this template should change, and maybe the phrasing should change to note any publication, and maybe other reforms could happen.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Example for book
I posted this to the talk page of Kohinoor:

The situation is that a book is discussing some information on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The fields in this template do not match for a book. In "title", I put the book's title, which by the template shows up with quotation marks instead of italicized as it should be.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat related to czar's request above. Right now the template is implemented using hard-coded citation fields referencing cite web, rather than allowing for freeform citation addition. I would be agreeable to multiple changes on that front.
 * Some thoughts:
 * Use numbered parameters, or something similar (1, citation2; generally n or citationn).
 * This would dis-enable another proposal, so we might leave a daten behind.
 * "press" to "media" displayed in the template-proper isn't a problem and could be done trivially today.
 * A more descriptive title for the template would also be appreciated. We might be able to usurp mention, which currently redirects as to reply to, after a suitable RFD. An alternate might be media mention or similar? (Media mention already redirects here! :))
 * However, the largest problem would be backward compatibility. While it is possible to do all of these things with the current template after some additional functionality, it might be better to change the use across the board with a bot request.
 * --Izno (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that has the best idea. I wish that this template were an open text box which led with a statement like, "This article was the subject of this media work:" then there could be empty space for a note and a standard citation.
 * , you suggest numbered parameters. I am doubtful that this template should devise its own citation style. This template dates from 2006. Things have changed then, so there might be some legacy decisions built into this. Looking forward I want anyone to have a machine readable way to examine all uses of this template, but I think that ease of use is more likely to come from using the main citation system than any setting more parameters here.
 * The parameter for identifying the state of the article at the time of media examination is good. I do like that, and maybe we should adopt that parameter.
 * mention is being used in 5-600 places. Ideally I would prefer a name which 0-~20 uses so that we do not encroach on some existing process. "Media mention" probably works. "Mention" does seem like the best way to describe what we are cataloging with this template, and the current use of mention is just a redirect. I hesitate to usurp that template because we would have to seek comment from whomever uses it and then cleanup all the redirects. I could research who uses it but not sort the bot replacement of the template.
 * I agree - if we made changes then probably we should plan for a bot to try to make changes to the old uses of the template. We could sidestep backward compatibility for a while by testing a new template for a while, but I would not want to establish a new template and process without having a plan for the previous use. It seems like this is used 3000-5000 times, which is too much for manual processing. I think that it would be worthwhile to have good documentation on this because noting when and where external sources talk about particular Wikipedia articles makes for interesting research and journalism.
 *  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I recommend: (1) create media mention, (2) Bot run to convert press-specific formatting to regular citations in media mention, (3) redirect press. n for separate bullets works for me. Based on no response above, I'm working from the assumption that there is no reason why press would need its current hard-coded params. czar  17:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it can be done simply in this template (also, don't want to HISTSPLIT) with a simple if 1 then 1 else if the other parameters for item 1, then the rest of item 1. Media mention already redirects here, so we could move this template over the redirect (maybe even now since there is only on revision on the redirect). I did make a comment in the proposal section above and this section here about how having daten would probably be helpful. --Izno (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)