Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:51, 2 March 2018

March 2

Template:Argentina squad 2011 Copa América

• Template:Argentina squad 2011 Copa América (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Bolivia squad 2011 Copa América (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Brazil squad 2011 Copa América (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Chile squad 2011 Copa América (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Colombia squad 2011 Copa América (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Costa Rica squad 2011 Copa América (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ecuador squad 2011 Copa América (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Mexico squad 2011 Copa América (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Paraguay squad 2011 Copa América (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Peru squad 2011 Copa América (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Venezuela squad 2011 Copa América (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per WP:TCREEP and recent consensus that these templates are not needed and are waste of space. Störm (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note: There is a concurrent discussion taking place to build a clear and thorough consensus about these templates. See here. Störm (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Cite press release

• Template:Cite press release (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite news (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Cite press release with Template: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 {{Cite news}} that has a |work=Press release. (Very important for people who wish to write Featured Articles.)

Please note that:

• They are compatible. {{Cite news}} 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 Misplaced Pages'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 {{Cite news}} or {{Cite web}}. (Actually, we already do this.) An explicit |work= passed into {{Cite press release}} 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. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• oppose:
  1. can anyone provide evidence to show how the styling differences between {{cite press release}} and {{cite news}} have hindered people who wish to write Featured Articles?
  2. concur with others who note that |work=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
  3. |work= has been italicized in {{cite news}} since this edit, 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, {{cite journal}} has italicized |journal= since its inception, 4 February 2005.
  4. lack of support for {{cite press release}} in various citation tools does not mean that editors are being actively discouraged from using it.
  5. 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 {{cite press release}} than if they try to do the same thing with {{cite news}} or one of the other cs1|2 templates.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  • @Trappist the monk:

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 Misplaced Pages in any fundamental way is obstructed by people who say "Oppose" first and think of a reason later. Misplaced Pages'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 forced to use the template incorrectly in Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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 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)