Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 2



Template:Argentina squad 2011 Copa América

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 March 12. (non-admin closure) Nihlus  08:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Argentina_squad_2011_Copa_América
 * Bolivia_squad_2011_Copa_América
 * Brazil_squad_2011_Copa_América
 * Chile_squad_2011_Copa_América
 * Colombia_squad_2011_Copa_América
 * Costa_Rica_squad_2011_Copa_América
 * Ecuador_squad_2011_Copa_América
 * Mexico_squad_2011_Copa_América
 * Paraguay_squad_2011_Copa_América
 * Peru_squad_2011_Copa_América
 * Venezuela_squad_2011_Copa_América
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Cite press release

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Apparently, the Wikipedia's old guard is afraid of change, no matter how positive and constructive it is. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Cite press release with Template:Cite news.
 * Cite press release
 * Cite news

Redundant to (and compatible with) Cite news, it deviates from the CS1 style by writing "Press release" into parenthesis and without italicization. One can easily achieve a more consistent look using a that has a Press release. (Very important for people who wish to write Featured Articles.)

Please note that:
 * They are compatible. already supports all its parameters, and more. So, the merger is quick and painless; no more than three pages need to be edit. (The template, and two navbox.) The impact on the articles will be purely positive.
 * Starting 2014, CS1 templates italicize all works regardless of the medium. i.e. names of books, websites, films, magazines, newspapers, etc., regardless of whether they are written with work, website or newspaper, which are aliases. So, "press release" must also be written in italic.
 * This template is already not supported by Citoid, Citation expander, RefToolbar 2.0, ProveIt, SnipManager and Cite4Wiki. This means that editors are being actively discouraged from using it.
 * We already have 24 CS1 templates. Merging as many of them as possible helps make the Wikipedia's very steep learning curve more merciful.









Codename Lisa (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * work is not for that though, and is used 2939 times in cite press release, so how will that work? Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. What you discovered is not the purpose; it is a silly mistake. Do you see a work in any of the examples above? That's not an accident. Something can either be published in a press release (a type of work) or in another type of work with its own title. For example, the title of Microsoft press release has originally been "press pass", then "news" and now "stories". Apple and Symantec are like that too. (Also please pay attention the two last examples.) After we performed the merger, those who prefer "Press release" as the work's name keep using this template and those who prefer the more accurate title of the press release (e.g. "press pass" in case of Microsoft) can use or . (Actually, we already do this.) An explicit work passed into  can override the default "Press release" value.
 * —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Quite apart from the misuse of the work parameter, there is a distinct difference in that a press release is almost always a primary source, whereas a news report is probably a secondary source. See also WP:NEWSORG. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * oppose:
 * can anyone provide evidence to show how the styling differences between and  have hindered people who wish to write Featured Articles?
 * concur with others who note that Press release is a misuse of that parameter; a 'work' names a publication (The New York Times, Salon, etc); a 'press release' is a publication type
 * work has been italicized in since, 8 March 2006, when the cs1 templates were all independent of each other. That cs1 italicizes work and aliases is not new as proposer might have you believe.  For example,  has italicized journal since , 4 February 2005.
 * lack of support for in various citation tools does not mean that editors are being actively discouraged from using it.
 * I'm somewhat sympathetic to the education argument, however, a relatively inexperienced editor has, I think, a better chance of correctly citing a press release if they use than if they try to do the same thing with  or one of the other cs1|2 templates.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For #1: Yes, I can. It happened to myself when I took Microsoft Security Essentials to FA. I was forced to forgo the use of work altogether, just so my nomination succeeds. (This way, book citations and website citations looked consistent.) The nominations (two of them) are still available for reading. But since you've already said "Oppose", I probably better not go hunt links for you. Still, you know where to find them yourself.
 * For #2: You are confusing work with via. If a press release is published by New Your Times, the latter must go into via not work because it neither provides editorial oversight nor holds the copyright for it. (Same goes for an advertisement that is printed in a magazine: The magazine's name goes to via. Sure, this example is ridiculous, but again New York Times doesn't publish churnalism either.)
 * For #3: Really? Then it has changed later on. And back into full italicization again. I do remember in 2012, some cases of using CS1 templates didn't italicize the work, but I don't remember what. (Still, it appears I am not the only one who remembers such a thing. See this: .) What's your point anyway? If this template is deviating from a standard that was set down in 2006, then all the more reason for a "Support", not "Oppose".
 * For #4: And yet that's exactly what admins such as yourself do when they want to discourage certain behavior in a user: They ban him or her from a certain topic, action, etc.
 * For #5: What are you talking about? What chance? The syntax is the same and the output is almost the same. The chance is equal, not better. (And not worse.)
 * Seriously, after five years, I feel any attempt to improve Wikipedia in any fundamental way is obstructed by people who say "Oppose" first and think of a reason later. Wikipedia's old guard such as yourself seems to love to stick to old, damaged, broken and unpopular things, no matter what. I am feeling frustration.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding #2, you are simply wrong. The documentation and subsequent use of those parameters has been consistent for some time, and it does not match your opinion of those templates. #4 seems not to respond to TTM's comment whatsoever. As for #1, I do not see that you were ever to use the template incorrectly in Featured article candidates/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive2. Why did you start a TFM based on a 6-year-old problem, if indeed there is not something I am missing in that discussion, instead of coming to Help talk:CS1 to get it figured out for the now (and possibly thence to update the article in question)? --Izno (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! That's disappointing! You say I am simply wrong in regards to #2 and #4 without explaining why, and you say that in the face of the fact that I have live examples to support my argument. Also, have you even seen the documentation? (I did.) It is saying what I am saying. (Merit does not seem to be the reason for which you are rejecting my arguments. Are you in denial?) And I've heard the "nobody forces anyone to do anything" argument a lot, and it always sounds deceitful. Leverage is a recurrent motif. Nevertheless, MTT asked and I answered. I don't see why you get to complain.
 * Finally, your only meaningful question: "Why did you start a TFM based on a 6-year-old problem ?" I have underlined the word in your question that answers it: Because it is a problem! —Codename Lisa (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * replies:
 * With, Editor Nikkimaria noted inconsistencies in reference formatting specifically between:
 * fn 50 and fn 51 where the difference lies in the use of AV-TEST.org (fn 50) and AV-TEST.org (fn 51)
 * fn 55 and fn 56 where the differences that the reviewing editor is seeing aren't immediately obvious to me (perhaps a different version? the version before and the version after appear to be the same)
 * fn 22 and fn 63 where one uses CNET News and CBS Interactive (fn 22) while the other omits the wikilinks and omits publisher (fn 63)
 * I did not find anything in that FAC that forced [you] to forgo the use of work altogether.
 * Here is via documentation at ; pretty sure that I'm not confusing it with work. In #2 of my original post, I wrote against the use of Press release because 'Press release' is not the name of a publication and I used The New York Times and Salon as exemplars of publication names commonly used with .  Perhaps I should have extended my comment that a 'press release' is a publication type to note that when a press release is cited using, type holds 'Press release'
 * Yeah, really. At the time of the Microsoft Security Essentials FAC,  did not support work but that template was not in use in the article at the time that Editor Nikkimaria commented about reference inconsistencies.  You wrote Starting 2014, CS1 templates italicize all works regardless of the medium. i.e. names of books, websites, films, magazines, newspapers, etc., regardless of whether they are written with work, website or newspaper, which are aliases.  My reading of that makes me think that you believe that something magical, catestrophic, pick your adjective, happened that year.  My point was to show that for those templates that supported some sort of work parameter, that parameter's value was rendered in italic font long before 2014.  To the best of my knowledge, neither  nor any of the other cs1|2 templates are deviating from the 'standard'.
 * I'm lost, what are you talking about? How does what you wrote refute my point 4?
 * I disagree. Yeah,  and  can use the same parameters and will render exactly the same (except for their metadata which will be different) if you know to set Press release in ; an inexperienced editor is less likely to know to do that and so has less chance of getting it right.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems like a misguided approach to talking about a merge given that no discussion has previously occurred on Help talk:CS1... Agreed with RR64 and TTM about their concerns as well. Oppose the merge. --Izno (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fact that cite press release puts "Press release" into parenthesis and without italicization is not an error or an inconsistency. Neither the Chicago or the APA citation style guides, upon which CS1 is loosely based, use italicization for "press release" like they do for the names of publications.  Both of these style guidelines use a separate style for press releases from that used for citation to news articles, one that does not use italicization (our current CS1 style for press releases is fairly close to the APA style).  In addition, to me, a citation with "Press Release" in italics reads like it is to something in a larger work named "Press release," not that the type of publication was a press release. —RP88 (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. work is not for "type of work". It is for the name of the work. The name of the work is never "Press release". – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge – they're used for very different things. Right off the bat, press releases are WP:Primary sources, while "news" sources should be WP:Secondary sources, as User:RedRose64 said... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge and suggest closure per WP:SNOW. The text "Press release" in a citation is an indication of the type of source, and that's why it's in parentheses. This isn't the only case where that is done:
 * Cite map:
 * Cite interview:
 * Cite news using Editorial to indicate that the source isn't a straight news item:
 * Based on these examples, the CS1 style consistently indicates the type of a source in this fashion, and not in italics, which is reserved for the name of a work (book title, newspaper/journal/magazine title, website name, etc).  Imzadi 1979  →   22:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on these examples, the CS1 style consistently indicates the type of a source in this fashion, and not in italics, which is reserved for the name of a work (book title, newspaper/journal/magazine title, website name, etc).  Imzadi 1979  →   22:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this proposed use goes against the commonly-established use of the work field in other citation templates. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).