Template talk:Subscription required

Style
Subscription and Registration required should share the same styling. I'm not quite sure what the style should be. —Mrwojo (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * reg uses the established fix as a base template: I'd prefer that this template used a similar form of inheritance if possible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't fix formatting a bit harsh? The two subscription links in Bertrand Russell, one to JSTOR and the other to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, seem like they don't need fixing because the links are for references and are merely a convenience for online readers. Perhaps an explicit, self-referencing cleanup template is in order, such as, to flag links that are suspected of being against the WP:EL guideline. (Registration required has the same situation, with the first two uses being to stories from Financial Times and Rolling Stone.)


 * As for this, YouTube has a similar notice that a site has restrictions which it displays as small text in parentheses. So maybe (registration required) and (subscription required) would best reflect this not-necessarily-broken-but-consider-yourself-forewarned message. —Mrwojo (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's ideal, but I would rather that all such templates fell under some specific category and were thus subclassed to a relevant meta-template. If an alternative were available which better suited then both templates could be migrated onto it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems reasonable for us to create a meta-template to help organize these templates since I can't think of any existing categories or meta-templates that unambiguously address this. The closest might be Category:External link file type templates, which doesn't have an associated meta-template (and it kind of shows). —Mrwojo (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar fix
This template's text should read  instead of "(subscription required)" since it is used after citations, which end with "." I fixed it. A conforming edit has been made to Registration required. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  09:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This grammar fix at registration required was reverted without comment (which was rude) as part of the next revision. The tempalte doc illustrations, more adequate here than for registration, show styling as a grammatical sentence does not fit.
 * Indeed, this template and registration required are frequently used at the end of bulleted list entries that are not closed with any punctuation, nor internally punctuated. (I have used only this one, usually in the External links sections of articles. Another bulleted list context is under "Citations" or "Books" or "Websites" in the References section.)
 * The documentation for both templates, and WP:EL as well, imply but do not illustrate the use of external links in running prose. I'm not sure that that is anywhere accepted in Good articles, or even B articles, but it is common in article space and it may be reasonable to use the template inline where applicable. I think the documentation should cover the latter somehow. (I'd be happier myself with a "small superscript" display such as dead generates.)
 * --P64 (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I second the motion for superscripting this tag. -- Ty rS  15:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Proper use with citation templates
Proper use of this and with citation templates based on Template:Citation/core (i.e., almost all of them) is undefined

It should not be placed between the template and the  for this tool or that won't parse it as being part of the citation data (if you want tech details, you'd have to ask the maintainers of ). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  09:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would this need to be parsed in the citation data? The postscript does not appear in the metadata. If this need to be integrated, then we should add it to core. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 10:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, this should not be stuffed inside a citation template, else the markup will be included:


 * ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 17:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

When to use this template
I have a question about the  tag. An editor at DYK seems to feel that the tag is required on all sources that are avaiable at online databases that require subscription (e.g. Jstor and Springer) whether or not the sources are also available as paper sources. I don't think this is reasonable - and believe that per WP:PAYWALL the tag should only be used for sources that are only available through subscription and cannot be ordered through a library. What is the policy on that tag? If anyone wants to look at the article in question it is Maya ICBG bioprospecting controversy - one of the sources is a paper book edited volume that is also available for download from Springer, but which can be found in public libraries and research libraries.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it should apply only to the url parameter. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 04:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Link
My adding a link to WP:V was reverted with "this link seems useless, if someone clicks on it they are probably looking for info about the particular subscription, not a general note that such references are acceptable". I believe, in keeping with the WP:INLINE standardization project, that this template should link to some guidance somewhere that explains either how subscription sources are used or how to find nonsubscription sources. Someone seeking info about the subscription itself would click the citation's URL, not this template, so the template is free to provide this additional guidance. Any ideas on the best target? JJB 17:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Such links are useful for most of the other templates in WP:INLINE because they are maintenance templates. They're suggesting the user do something to improve the page, and a link is needed to provide guidance on how to do that. This template is different, because subscription sources are acceptable, so there's no need for the user to do anything. It's simply a courtesy notice to the user that they likely won't be able to access the link if they click on it. And I think it's perfectly natural to think that a link named "subscription required" would give you information about the subscription that is required. If we can't provide that information, then it shouldn't be a link. Toohool (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

via parameter
I think the  parameter is perfectly acceptable in terms of tracking links to this template related to a particular source. however, I don't think we need to make it visible. I can simply hover over the link to see if the source is HighBeam or ProQuest or whatever. it just feels like unnecessary advertising. from the thread on Plastikspork's talk page, it appears this was added as some sort of a compromise after the TfD of template:HighBeam. I originally supported the addition of a second parameter, but on second thought I think it is unnecessary. however, I would still support it for tracking purposes, or as a way to add a class to this template, which would allow me to personally hide it or modify it for particular subscription services (e.g., color subscription required in another color if it is one to which I have personally subscribed, much the same way that I have changed other coloring in my own vector.css page). Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The advert aspect is my objection. I have less objection to the tracking notion. I do think some tracking useful; I added a tracking cat, here. These were supposed to be "free" accounts, but if the norm is to advertise their use, then they weren't free, were they? I would agree to a resurrection of HighBeam if it were in conjunction with not displaying the shout-out of "HighBeam" via this template. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The via param is useful for many other archives besides HighBeam, such as ProQuest, NewsBank, etc., so I don't think the "quid pro quo" issue that you're raising should be a factor here. It seems to me that this is simply a matter of saying where you got it. Different archives could have slightly different versions of an article, so it's useful for verifiability purposes to know which version was used. It's also helpful to readers to figure out whether they'll be able to access the link. If I see a New York Times story with, I might assume that I need a New York Times subscription, but if I see , then I know I need a NewsBank subscription. It's true you can meet both these needs by hovering over the link, but I think being explicit in references is generally a good idea. By the same argument, we could get rid of the newspaper param in cite news, because you can just hover over the link. Toohool (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of us have used essentially the following, which do not activate the title as a linkname; commonly, the one or two links displayed here are the first one(s) in the Refs or Extlinks entry that is illustrated. These are my adaptations of usage by other editors. "(subscription required)", either freehand or generated by template, is included only where applicable. Inclusion and location of the dot(.) may vary.
 * ... (content suppressed but no link suppressed). U of Pennsylvania Press. Reprint retrieved 2012-09-22 via Questia.
 * ... (content suppressed but no link suppressed). U of Pennsylvania Press. Reprint retrieved 2012-09-22.

Offhand I doubt that I have used the former myself. The latter does not "shout out" the service name. Both variants are transparent to me, as the "via" information is attached to retrieval. The approved template is transparent to me only because it does "shout out" the service name; as it attaches the information to the original publisher, it seems to identify the service as a secondary publisher. We credit the service purposefully, it seems to me, just as traditional citations credit the publishers of paper sources that are "reprints" (secondary publishers) but do not credit the printers of paper sources.

(From reading here today, I understand that we freeform writers undermine Wikipedia tracking usage of such services as Questia.)

--P64 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Abstract available
Maybe a parameter is required for the common case where an abstract (often itself fairly useful) is available, but the full text is only available on payment? Maybe difficult to do in a non-wordy way? Pol098 (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * it does seem like that would be too wordy. if the information being cited required subscription, then use this template.  if you can get the information being cited from a free abstract, then no need for this template (e.g., where it's just verification that the article exists, and has the specified authors, title, etc.). Frietjes (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, precision must get wordy. There are many variants and some are complex.
 * Before spending hours in Template(talk) and Wikipedia(talk) space, I made a change (line 67 only) in one reference (ref#3) that needed attention otherwise. Re the matter at hand, both Before and After now seem regrettably wordy to me.


 * P.S. I don't consider that one worth changing alone. For one, section 9 where that source needs to be used more substantially remains essentially unreferenced; for two, it's a Talk page subject. --P64 (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Revisiting this, I've looked again at P64's line 67 only edit, using . This makes good sense (I cite it here explicitly in case anyone wants to copy it). It could be trimmed with little loss of meaning to something like , still a bit wordy. Pol098 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

i was looking for a way to note that a source allowed access to a limited number of articles. this seemed important, especially where one WP article is referencing multiple articles from a source that does that. i don't know if this is the best solution, but i used the "link note" used by P64 to do so. i did it on this page (i don't know how to make a 'jump' like P64 did above): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Bentley i'm surprised this hasn't been brought up before. does anyone think this might be the best way to do this? oh, this is what i used:

and then i put in or changed the access date parameter within the ref.Colbey84 (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

NYT
Would you use this template for example on a link to the NYT? NYT allows some number of free accesses per month, after which they require a subscription. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Based on what I see, editors leave off the subscription tag when some articles are available for free each month. Kaltenmeyer (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

use when Archive URL bypasses required subscription?
When editing Felix Sunzu today, I found that this reference requires a subscription, but the Wayback Machine's archived page is complete. I removed the subscription required template, as this enables a user to read the full article. Should the template still be included? - Paul2520 (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This will be matter of opinion but here is mine. If the source URL is dead and the web archive is working and not subscription, it shouldn't be marked subscription. If the source URL is live and subscription, it should be marked subscription, regardless of the web archive status. The idea is the subscription status should be for the source URL when that information is available. If the source URL is dead we no longer know its subscription status, and can fall back on the archive URL as a proxy source of information the last time we knew anything about it (when it was archived). --  Green  C  21:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, the template is really to indicate to the user whether or not the source will be readable to them, not an indication of it's publication status. It should always refer to whether the direct link requires a subscription. A sentient pickle (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Public access template?
Given that a very large number of academic papers are available only to paid subscribers, that many Wikipedia citations do not indicate this, and that readers may assume by default that a scientific paper cited is paywalled if nothing is mentioned, maybe there is a requirement for a "Public access" template and a parameter in Cite journal (or a message triggered by the existing "subscription=" if "no")? (Maybe something like this exists, but I haven't found it, and would have expected to have found it mentioned in the documentation for this template.) There would seem to be 3 main categories of access: public, on free-of-charge registration, and paid. Maybe we should also even distinguish "pay-per-view" and strict "paid subscriber-only" access? At present a reference with "subscription=yes" displays "(subscription required (help))", while "subscription=no" generates an error message (at the time of writing). At the very least, as a temporary measure "subscription=no" should not generate an error message.

While technically "Cite journal" is a separate template, it would make sense to have a common approach. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See Open access and WikiProject Open Access/Signalling OA-ness. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ... which was indeed mentioned at the bottom of Template:Subscription required, where I missed it. Thanks, Pol098 (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are we using this template with CS1|2 templates?
For example why do we do this:


 * Bovver boot:



When we can do this:


 * Bovver boot:



There are some small differences but the second option is more commonly used, more succinct and no need for a third party template. -- Green  C  20:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There is also yes:


 * (t) Josve05a  (c) 20:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bad practices that were never updated after CS1/2 templates had access locks of their own. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The short answer to the original question is that url-access is a relatively new feature that was added in October 2016. via was added to the documentation in 2014, although the parameter existed in 2013 and probably before that. If you search for the word "mimic" in this 2014 version of the CS1 module, you can see that at least one person took the time to explain that the via/subscription feature was specifically added to eliminate the need for a separate subscription required template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jonesey95, that makes sense. Now that enough time has passed, maybe we should consider 1) changing this template documentation so it's only for free-form cites (remove the CS1|2 examples) and 2) make a botreq to convert existing cases to CS1|2. To do that though might require some evidence of community support. -- Green  C  00:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend posting over at Help talk:Citation Style 1 with a pointer to this conversation. There may be some benefit to keeping the templates separate, but I can't think of one. I suspect that this template is just a relic of history and nobody has bothered to clean it up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is just plain better to have the data together in one template. There will be cases where there are two cite templates in a single reference and it is not clear which one (or both) the subscription template points to.  Those cases of course require manual cleanup, but are a reminder that this should be done.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is just plain better to have the data together in one template. There will be cases where there are two cite templates in a single reference and it is not clear which one (or both) the subscription template points to.  Those cases of course require manual cleanup, but are a reminder that this should be done.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I'm thinking a TFD might be the way to get consensus before BRFA. It's not a template merge but similar in effect. -- Green  C  17:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A TFD would result in 'snow keep' per a) this is still in use b) manual citations are a thing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes the template doesn't go away, it's still needed for free-form cites, but for cases involving CS1|2 it would be in-effect a merger (a "soft merge"). TFD is (presumably) for Discussion of any issues involving things like this. -- Green  C  18:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Headbomb, after some thought you may be right re: TFD they seem to be about mergers and deletions only. Perhaps an RfC. Need a consensus for BRFA given the number of edits. -- Green  C  14:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Is someone taking the lead on making this happen. My hands are too busy with Citation Bot. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * IMO that's beyond the scope of citation bot. Or at least it's too complex a task, with unclearly defined logic at this point. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * using citation bot would be a terrible choice. Some AWB user or some other custom bot is the way to go. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No I would make the bot. That is why the below RfC to get it past BRFA. But no one is participating :) -- Green  C  19:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Replace template with CS1/2 mechanism where possible
Proposal is with CS1/2 templates that look like this:
 * Bovver boot:



Replace with this:


 * Bovver boot:



As background, this template was created before CS1/2 had a url-access feature. It also makes other tools like Citation bot difficult as it's not always clear which citation is being tagged with which template.

The RfC will 1) change the documentation to be only for use in free-form citations 2) and for a bot to make the conversions of existing cases to the CS1/2 system (like in the example). Estimate is about 12k-15k cases. -- Green  C  22:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I don't think anyone will disagree that this is preferable, but part of the reason we moved to distinct para-access parameters is because it is not always unambiguous where the locks apply when there are multiple identifiers present. --Izno (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. Sometimes the sub template is embedded in the CS1/2 next to the parameter making it unambiguous. If there is only a URL and no identifier it would be unambiguous. If it's outside the CS1/2 and there is a URL plus identifiers, it is ambiguous. In that case it should use yes correct? --  Green  C  04:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe the purpose of this RfC is not clear? I will write a bot to fix this problem. It's no problem (well it won't be an easy bot). But, I can't open a BRFA as the only person who wants a bot. Thus this RfC. It's where you say "Yeah I want a bot" so the BRFA admins can check off community support for the bot. -- Green  C  20:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly support doing this and strongly support using a bot to get this task done. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This isn't a very bot friendly task to begin with. If you can come up with a specific algorithm that tackles specific situations, sure, but these templates are GIGO clusterfucks waiting to happen. Maybe you can tackle 10% of the situations. Maybe 25%. Most would need manual AWB runs I feel. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The 80/20 rule is usually reliable with Wikipedia, and based on the ones I've looked at the 80 side of things will be bot friendly, such as when the template is embedded inside a CS|2. I wouldn't worry about GIGO that will come up in the BRFA and during testing, if the bot can't be accurate enough it won't pass. No bot is entirely perfect but bots are still useful. Fixing 25,000 cases manually should be last resort (if ever gets done). --  Green  C  20:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I support a bot, and I agree with that a conservative bot should be able to fix 80% or so without many false positives. I do a ton of script-assisted editing, and I can almost always find a few regular expressions that will fix more than half of a given population of problems with almost no false positives. Even if the fix rate is 50%, that's a lot of articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The lock icons are ugly and unclear. Some editors, like myself, use this template because we prefer a text indicator, and that choice should be respected per WP:CITEVAR. If you want to use  instead of , I would have no problem with that, since it preserves the choice to use text instead of an icon. Toohool (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The lock icon is terrible, but the idea is good.  scope_creep Talk  12:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not too set on the lock either way. So you know they can be hovered and the meaning pops up, don't need to remember what the colors and symbols mean. IMO that systems is cleaner and more modern vs. cluttering the citation and wikisource with literal strings. --  Green  C  15:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I vote approve. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * has over 35k transclusions, more than this one. It can contain a note indicating subscription required, yet another way to indicate this message. The template dates to 2012, so it's not old yet has so many usages that seem to duplicate other existing templates, strange. When looking for use-cases, it can't be found on the page, suggesting they are transcluded from somewhere, but I can't seem to find where. Does anyone know anything about it? -- Green  C  16:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like accounts for about 9k of them. --  Green  C  16:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Transclusions of Link note in Template space. Registration required has 1,500 transclusions. Almost all of the others appear to use Subscription required or ODNBsub. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

insert or end for ref tags
for example: should i add after pmid template or after tag? <_> jindam, vani (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)