The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 March 12. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 08:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn.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.
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:
|work=
, |website=
or |newspaper=
, which are aliases. So, "press release" must also be written in italic.Examples that demonstrates their compatibility:
|
---|
|
|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)
|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.|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)((cite press release))
and ((cite news))
have hindered people who wish to write Featured Articles?
|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|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.((cite press release))
in various citation tools does not mean that editors are being actively discouraged from using it.
((cite press release))
than if they try to do the same thing with ((cite news))
or one of the other cs1|2 templates.|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.|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.)"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)
inconsistencies in reference formattingspecifically between:
|work=AV-TEST.org
(fn 50) and |publisher=AV-TEST.org
(fn 51)|newspaper=[[CNET News]]
and |publisher=[[CBS Interactive]]
(fn 22) while the other omits the wikilinks and omits |publisher=
(fn 63)forced [you] to forgo the use of |work=
altogether
.|via=
documentation at ((cite news))
; pretty sure that I'm not confusing it with |work=
. In #2 of my original post, I wrote against the use of |work=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 ((cite news))
. Perhaps I should have extended my comment that a 'press release' is a publication typeto note that when a press release is cited using
((cite news))
, |type=
holds 'Press release'((cite press release))
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 withMy 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=
,|website=
or|newspaper=
, which are aliases.
|work=
parameter, that parameter's value was rendered in italic font long before 2014. To the best of my knowledge, neither ((cite press release))
nor any of the other cs1|2 templates are deviating from the 'standard'.((cite news))
and ((cite press release))
can use the same parameters and will render exactly the same (except for their metadata which will be different) if you know to set |type=Press release
in ((cite news))
; an inexperienced editor is less likely to know to do that and so has less chance of getting it right.|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)|type=Editorial
to indicate that the source isn't a straight news item: MacDougall, Curt (November 20, 2004). "Road to Ruin Open for Business". The Grand Rapids Press (Editorial). p. A13. OCLC 9975013.