Jump to content

Template talk:Press

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


ER

[edit]

This should be uncontroversial: in {{Press/sandbox}}, I've increased the maximum number of article that this template can hold to avoid using the same template twice on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and other pages. FaviFake (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. As time goes on, items gather. FYI ping to @CiaPan. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that in the few cases this has been an issue so far (that I know of), it's dealt with like at Talk:Gaza genocide. Note that there is some hidden text between the templates. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks for the other example! Are you aware of any other pages that use this template more than once? So that we can fix it as soon as the ER is answered. FaviFake (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FaviFake Talk:Asian News International and Talk:Elon Musk are those I can think of atm. @CiaPan, you? Off-topic, but I think it's funny when articles like Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Perennial sources list get these templates. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I'm not sure how to seek multiple uses of a template, but one can find talk pages with a full {{Press}} template by seeking one of its last section parameters, like this
Special:Search/talk: insource:author30.
It's not a perfect solution, but seems good enough. --CiaPan (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful, thanks! FaviFake (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, forgot to ping FaviFake. --CiaPan (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the past when the number of templates are increased in similar templates it has caused display problems for the articles. Good ideas like this one are sometimes plagued by such, so I must pass on this one and let another TE do it who knows more about it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The added templates are citation templates. If we can have mainspace articles with 1000+ citations, I don't think it will ever become an issue if we add a few to a talk page. FaviFake (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done—Please report any issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 11 January 2026

[edit]

Description of suggested change: I just noticed that this template doesn't have a |trans-title = parameter, which seems like a reasonable thing to have in cases like [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before creating an edit request. phuzion (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seemed uncontroversial to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Start a discussion and you have my support vote. --CiaPan (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

|trans-title = parameter

[edit]

I just noticed that this template doesn't have a |trans-title = parameter, which seems like a reasonable thing to have in cases like [2]. I suggest we add it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Obvious. --CiaPan (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not. FaviFake (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 13:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapper template

[edit]

would it be better for this template become simply a wrapper for the {{cite-*}} templates? compare what is done in the newer {{Creator mention}} (compare also {{Refideas}}, though it uses a different syntax). the clearest rationale is that it will be way easier to add refs with your editor of choice and to maintain it (no need to say, establish concensus to add a parameter).

in terms of backwards compatability, one could have a |list= parameter to hold these. if and only if consensus is established, a bot may convert these into standard ref templates.  Juwan  🕊️🌈 05:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy ping: @Gråbergs Gråa Sång.  Juwan  🕊️🌈 06:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions in user-generated content

[edit]

this template I sometimes see being used with mentions from video essays on YouTube, say with Talk:Fanta cake and Talk:Battle of Orewin Bridge. as these do bring large traffic to the page ({{high traffic}}), but are nonetheless a type of coverage on their own right. would it be better to avoid all the connotations of "press" or "news" (point 3 in the doc's disclaimer) and choose a more generic name for the template? say, "external coverage"?  Juwan  🕊️🌈 06:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would go the other way, and not use this template at all for stuff like the Fanta cake example. Like you noted above, the Creator mention alt exists, as well as Template:Subject mention, but neither seems to fit here. But IMO, random WP:USERG stuff like adumb shouldn't go into this template, I have removed Twitter etc from it in the past. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG@TarnishedPath@Newslinger@CiaPan, feel like having an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I lean towards Gråbergs Gråa Sång's opinion: IMHO this template's use is to support our articles with more references (which might not be known or even exist during the article creation / expansion process) without inflating the 'References' section. As such it's not for confirming each an every mention of the topic published anywhere. The more so in a case of user–generated content, and especially at such volatile places like social media.
I believe WP:RS#WP:USERG applies here, as well as WP:WWIN#WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --CiaPan (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have at times been challenged for adding non-RS stuff, Daily Mail etc, in this template, and my usual reply is that RS doesn't apply on talkpages. I don't think "more references" is exactly on the mark, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_August_6#Template:Press has some comments on what people like with this template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that just because some media exists discussing an wiki article that we need to make some record of it. E.g., Daily Mail, and other purveyors of fake news, and news articles which engage in defamatory reporting or doxxing. TarnishedPathtalk 10:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This template automatically adds articles to Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press. Oftentimes, the purpose of this is to contextualize talk page discussions about ongoing coverage of editorial disputes, and press coverage listed here may come from sources otherwise considered unreliable.
The use of this template does not mean:
  • Every claim in an article linked to with this template is true.
  • Wikipedia is officially declaring the websites in it to be reliable sources.
  • Wikipedia is officially declaring the websites in it to be "news outlets", an official categorization that is more prestigious than "websites".
I do think we have a duty to engage with what the outside world thinks, and people who participate in discussions here ought to know what non-Wikipedians have to say about our editorial process. If what they have to say is stupid, well, then it is stupid. But I think we should still be aware of it. jp×g🗯️ 11:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The specific invocation of the Daily Mail here is a good example of this: it's obviously a pile of garbage. But it is a pile of garbage that millions of people read. Are we really supposed to not give a damn at all what it's telling those people about our articles? jp×g🗯️ 11:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"I do think we have a duty to engage with what the outside world thinks, and people who participate in discussions here ought to know what non-Wikipedians have to say about our editorial process".
I disagree. There should be limits. We should not act to publish links in circumstances where content engages in doxing or the publication of defamatory content. TarnishedPathtalk 12:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OUTING and WP:BLP applies on talkpages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we have a duty to engage with what the outside world thinks, and people who participate in discussions here ought to know what non-Wikipedians have to say about our editorial process. +1 That doesn't mean every commentary deserves a response, does not dictate what the response should be, and of course does not override doxxing, outing, BLP, and other concerns (and I don't think JPxG's comment implied that it would). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO this template's use is to support our articles with more references. Not quite. {{Refideas}} is a dedicated template for the purpose of identifying potential references. Meta commentary about Wikipedia's coverage of a subject is typically does not warrant coverage in the Wikipedia article about that subject. An article that criticized or praises a particular Wikipedia article might spark discussion and serve to identify other sources that we should consider using. There are no doubt articles that fit under {{Press}} and are also suitable sources for article content but it's not a 1:1 relationship; my sense is that most of the time {{Press}} mentions are not good sources for article content. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the ping. In general, the amount of effort needed to publish a piece of user-generated content (UGC) is far too low to justify linking UGC in the press template, and trying to determine which instances of UGC to allow in the template and which to exclude seems like a dubious undertaking, as we would be arguing about social media metrics such as the number of views, likes, and followers. If an instance of UGC is relevant to improving the article, it can be introduced on the article talk page in a proper discussion. — Newslinger talk 19:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If allowing user-generated content in the Press template becomes a thing, the creators of all sorts of user-generated content will use it as a mechanism to advertise their work. Upload a rant on youtube and advertise it in a bunch of related articles. This will be intolerable. I think that everything which is not acceptable for appearing openly on the talk page shouldn't be in Press template either. Zerotalk 03:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@CiaPan @JPxG @Juwan @Newslinger @TarnishedPath @Zero0000: Pinging participants to make you aware of a current, relevant example related to a social media post. This TikTok has spawned an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: Consistency in chosen and former names in biographies and talk page discussions for three different articles: Talk:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar#Why do we still use his slave name?, Talk:Muhammad Ali#Use of Slave Name vs. Chosen Name, and Talk:Stokely Carmichael#Requested move 25 May 2026. Shoutout to @Gråbergs Gråa Sång for making me aware of this discussion when I asked about the applicability of {{Press}} to a situation like this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have some conflicting thoughts here. Overall I think I am persuaded that the overwhelming majority of video essays, blog posts, social media posts, etc. that comment on a Wikipedia article probably do not warrant much attention. Those that do should spark discussion should be linked or otherwise prominently and transparently identified on talk or another relevant discussion page. Common sense and P&G-based considerations apply, for example with respect to outing, doxxing, BLP, etc. {{Press}} is probably not well suited for this and it probably doesn't make sense to create another talk page banner/template for this. I do feel something is perhaps missing but maybe the best solution is one-off discussion page threads. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there does seem to be a discrepancy between {{Press}} and {{High traffic}}. The guidance for {{High traffic}} explicitly encourages use with UGC sites like Reddit and says to use {{Press}} instead if the article is mentioned but not linked. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Press&oldid=1356607389"