Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source

Equivalent to Template:Published
Published exists for images. I've just added this usage and have been looking for an appropriate template to add to Talk:Inkie, as I've done at Commons. Does anyone know if something appropriate exists? (I'm not enough of a template expert to start messing with creating one now myself.) Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Use Onlinesource. If you missed or misinterpreted "To link to this page from the articles concerned, use Template:Onlinesource." on Wikipedia as a press source, consider clarifying the page as needed.—Bagumba (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's just the job. Dunno how I missed it! -- Trevj (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Need the page Wikipedia as a press source 2013. I was going to create it, but it looked complicated. The Online source template with the details is at Talk:Keep Calm and Carry On. HairyWombat 04:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Later. ✅. Thank you User:Resident Mario. HairyWombat 20:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments on adding Template:Historical to all Wikipedia as a press source YEAR pages
Should Historical be added to Wikipedia as a press source and to related Wikipedia as a press source YEAR pages listed in PressSourceYYYY? Information that used to be listed on these pages is now listed in Press on article talk pages, and no listings have been added for 2019 at Wikipedia as a press source 2019, so this series of pages appears dead/unmaintained. Note that in contrast, 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. Biogeographist (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that not much is going on at the Wikipedia as a press source pages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know they existed, but yeah activity has clearly faded off. Wikipedia has become mainstream so tracking these items seems kinda archaic and pointless. Unless some people show up arguing for these pages as active or useful, it's probably a good idea to mark them all historical. Alsee (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that marking them as historical would be appropriate with no prejudice against resurrection in the future. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (invited by the bot) I agree.  I didn't even know that this existed, it appears to be dead and probably not useful.North8000 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)