Template talk:Online source

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merging templates[edit]

We have four templates that basically accomplish the same thing. It would seem reasonable to add an optional year parameter to this template to duplicate the functionality of the others and obviate the need to create {{onlinesource2007}} and so on forever. I'm not really hip with the template mojo to do such a thing myself, but I welcome anyone else who can.  Anþony  talk  00:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Small' parameter[edit]

Is there any chance that this template could have its code modified to include a "small" parameter? It would help with the layout on some talk-pages, Talk:Sathya Sai Baba for example.

Also, is there some sort of syntax guide which I can consult in order to find out how to include multiple media citations of a WP article in this template? Regards, Ekantik talk 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article cited by manga[edit]

(Comments moved from Template talk:Onlinesource2006. Mike Peel 20:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

The article A Bao A Qu has been cited in the translation notes in the English edition of Negima!: Magister Negi Magi volume 11: "... according to Wikipedia, is itself a Malayan legend ..."

Is there a template I can add to the talk page, a bit like {{Onlinesource2006}} except for reference in a book as opposed to an reference online? And why is the year not a parameter to the template? This way the template has to be recreated every year. Shinobu 01:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the absence of a template, I would use the existing one, putting in the information as best possible. Details can be adjusted later.
BTW, IS this one of the templates that needs subst? If so, reword the instructions. Shinobu is quite right that all this must be explained more fully. DGG 05:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a reason this ends with a horizontal bar? Depending on where it is placed, that can be very disconcerting. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:55, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Multi-example version needed[edit]

(Comments moved from Template talk:Authoronlinesource. Mike Peel 20:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

It would be helpful to have a variant of this template that could accept multiple entries, in different years, so that talk pages are not festooned with so many of the templates in this series, but rather just one long one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SMcCandlish (talkcontribs) 11:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Multiple Tags example[edit]

(Comments moved from Template talk:Authoronlinesource2006)

As explained at Multiple Tags, the "This article has been cited as a source" tag should be adapted to fit multiple citations, instead of it being displayed multiple times as follows:


So where's the example and how do we adapt it to fit multiple citations, listing articles from 2004 and 2006 for example? Ekantik talk 03:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is a press source[edit]

Cited by academic publication?[edit]

(Comments moved from Template talk:Authoronlinesource2006)

An article published in a peer-reviewed journal was comparing different claims made on the internet about the numbers of speakers of various languages. A wikipedia page was cited (and its estimates weren't too bad!). It's not exactly a "press" source. Is there another template for academic citations of Wikipedia pages? ntennis 03:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I see it, scholarly journals form the academic press. Even Oxford University Press is a "press". --Damian Yerrick () 16:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Press has two meanings in this context: a colloquial word for "news reporting," and a "publisher," such as OUP mentioned above. This template is presently adapted for news reporting found online, but can be used nonetheless for any reference, online or not, and details adjusted later.
It is surely much better that editors enter the information in any format rather than leave it out to avoid dealing with reference formats, and I've indicated this on the page. Some people are not confident about these templatesDGG 05:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(Comments moved from Template talk:Authoronlinesource2007)

Should this template include a link to the Wikipedia article text as it was on the day the article was cited? John Dalton 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Currently, the template states "This page..." Since the template is on the talk page, it should state "This article..." --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shoestring annexation[edit]

Will somebody kindly visit Shoestring annexation and take care of the deprecated notice at the bottom of the page? Beseechingly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is this template for?[edit]

Seriously, because it isn't that clear. The wording of the template suggests it should be used for articles that have been cited as a source in the media, but it appears to be used primarily for any article that gets a mention in the press. I would not regard these two things as being the same. Small-town hero (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came here to say something similar. Either the wording should be changed or this should be removed from a lot of articles.Prezbo (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Front Page Magazine[edit]

A dispute has erupted over the inclusion of an article published in Front Page Magazine that discusses a number of Wikipedia BLPs. An ANI was started, but it failed to resolve the dispute or even address it in anything approaching a constructive discourse. Rather than have fragmented echoes of the ANI sprout up at every BLP referenced in the dispute, this seems like the most natural place to have a centralized discussion. The underlying questions is, Does Front Page Magazine qualify as an online source in the context of this template? The article in question is here and here.—Biosketch (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need a variable so we can change "page" to "article" or whatever else[edit]

Much like Template:Press has the subject variable, so that we can change it from "page" to "article" (to make it clearer to the reader whether the article or its talk page, or ______ is what was mentioned/referenced), we need that capability on this template. I'm moderately experienced with editing templates, but I still prefer not to make changes to templates on Wikipedia that are so widely used. Could someone add this? John Shandy`talk 04:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no "accessdate" parameter?[edit]

seems this template should have an "accessdate" parameter like other "source" templates (i.e., template:cite news, template:cite web, etc.). reminds one that links can go stale/dead.

also, would expect link to version of the wikipedia article on/about the date of its mention in the press. today's version may be night/day different than when press mentioned.-- (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added that parameter, thank you for the suggestion. Disavian (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

suppressing details[edit]

How can I suppress the "details" link when this template is executed and when the page it points to doesn't and shouldn't include any content about the article or source the template is applied to? As I recall, if the source is a book, the page linked to for details is irrelevant. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Notable citation}}, a simpler template for what seems to be the same purpose. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Press#Merge. Thanks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 15:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template currently appears broken[edit]

FYI the template currently appear to be broken, in that it doesn't display any content in the drop-down menu in most instances. See WP:Wikipedia as a press source for an example. I haven't the remotest idea how to fix it, though! :) djr13 (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]