Inline Templates | ||||
|
{{ Subscription}} and {{ Registration required}} should share the same styling. I'm not quite sure what the style should be. — Mrwojo ( talk) 01:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This template's text should read (Subscription required.)
instead of "(subscription required)" since it is used after citations, which end with "." I fixed it. A conforming edit has been made to {{
Registration required}}. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ
Contrib. 09:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Proper use of this and {{
Registration required}}
with citation templates based on
Template:Citation/core (i.e., almost all of them) is |postscript=. (subscription required)=
It should not be placed between the template and the </ref>
for this tool or that won't parse it as being part of the citation data (if you want tech details, you'd have to ask the maintainers of {{
Citation/core}}
). —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ
Contrib. 09:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
{{ Source}} is deprecated. Please use a more specific template. See the documentation for a list of suggested templates.
I have a question about the {{subscription required}} tag. An editor at DYK seems to feel that the tag is required on all sources that are avaiable at online databases that require subscription (e.g. Jstor and Springer) whether or not the sources are also available as paper sources. I don't think this is reasonable - and believe that per WP:PAYWALL the tag should only be used for sources that are only available through subscription and cannot be ordered through a library. What is the policy on that tag? If anyone wants to look at the article in question it is Maya ICBG bioprospecting controversy - one of the sources is a paper book edited volume that is also available for download from Springer, but which can be found in public libraries and research libraries. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
|url=
parameter. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 04:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)My adding a link to WP:V#Access to sources was reverted with "this link seems useless, if someone clicks on it they are probably looking for info about the particular subscription, not a general note that such references are acceptable". I believe, in keeping with the WP:INLINE standardization project, that this template should link to some guidance somewhere that explains either how subscription sources are used or how to find nonsubscription sources. Someone seeking info about the subscription itself would click the citation's URL, not this template, so the template is free to provide this additional guidance. Any ideas on the best target? JJB 17:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the via
parameter is perfectly acceptable in terms of tracking links to this template related to a particular source. however, I don't think we need to make it visible. I can simply hover over the link to see if the source is HighBeam or ProQuest or whatever. it just feels like unnecessary advertising. from the thread on
Plastikspork's talk page, it appears this was added as some sort of a compromise after
the TfD of template:HighBeam. I originally supported the addition of a second parameter, but on second thought I think it is unnecessary. however, I would still support it for tracking purposes, or as a way to add a class to this template, which would allow me to personally hide it or modify it for particular subscription services (e.g., color subscription required in another color if it is one to which I have personally subscribed, much the same way that I have changed other coloring in my own vector.css page).
Frietjes (
talk) 15:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Some of us have used essentially the following, which do not activate the title as a linkname; commonly, the one or two links displayed here are the first one(s) in the Refs or Extlinks entry that is illustrated.
These are my adaptations of usage by other editors. "(subscription required)", either freehand or generated by template, is included only where applicable. Inclusion and location of the dot(.) may vary.
Offhand I doubt that I have used the former myself. The latter does not "shout out" the service name. Both variants are transparent to me, as the "via" information is attached to retrieval. The approved template is transparent to me only because it does "shout out" the service name; as it attaches the information to the original publisher, it seems to identify the service as a secondary publisher. We credit the service purposefully, it seems to me, just as traditional citations credit the publishers of paper sources that are "reprints" (secondary publishers) but do not credit the printers of paper sources.
(From reading here today, I understand that we freeform writers undermine Wikipedia tracking usage of such services as Questia.)
-- P64 ( talk) 01:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a parameter is required for the common case where an abstract (often itself fairly useful) is available, but the full text is only available on payment? Maybe difficult to do in a non-wordy way? Pol098 ( talk) 12:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
i was looking for a way to note that a source allowed access to a limited number of articles. this seemed important, especially where one WP article is referencing multiple articles from a source that does that. i don't know if this is the best solution, but i used the "link note" used by P64 to do so. i did it on this page (i don't know how to make a 'jump' like P64 did above): /info/en/?search=Todd_Bentley i'm surprised this hasn't been brought up before. does anyone think this might be the best way to do this? oh, this is what i used: (~3 free articles allowed before subscription required) and then i put in or changed the access date parameter within the ref. Colbey84 ( talk) 05:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Would you use this template for example on a link to the NYT? NYT allows some number of free accesses per month, after which they require a subscription. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 19:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
When editing Felix Sunzu today, I found that this reference requires a subscription, but the Wayback Machine's archived page is complete. I removed the subscription required template, as this enables a user to read the full article. Should the template still be included? - Paul2520 ( talk) 13:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Given that a very large number of academic papers are available only to paid subscribers, that many Wikipedia citations do not indicate this, and that readers may assume by default that a scientific paper cited is paywalled if nothing is mentioned, maybe there is a requirement for a "Public access" template and a parameter in {{ Cite journal}} (or a message triggered by the existing "subscription=" if "no")? (Maybe something like this exists, but I haven't found it, and would have expected to have found it mentioned in the documentation for this template.) There would seem to be 3 main categories of access: public, on free-of-charge registration, and paid. Maybe we should also even distinguish "pay-per-view" and strict "paid subscriber-only" access? At present a reference with "subscription=yes" displays "(subscription required (help))", while "subscription=no" generates an error message (at the time of writing). At the very least, as a temporary measure "subscription=no" should not generate an error message. [1]
While technically "Cite journal" is a separate template, it would make sense to have a common approach. Best wishes, Pol098 ( talk) 11:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Ref with "subscription=no"
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
For example why do we do this:
{{cite news | url=https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-61177939 | title=Max hangs up his boots with £200m | work=[[The People]] | date=March 31, 1996 | accessdate=March 4, 2013 | author=Gunn, Cathy}}{{Subscription required|via=[[Questia Online Library]]}}
When we can do this:
{{cite news | url=https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-61177939 | title=Max hangs up his boots with £200m | work=[[The People]] | url-access=subscription | via = [[Questia Online Library]] | date=March 31, 1996 | accessdate=March 4, 2013 | author=Gunn, Cathy}}
There are some small differences but the second option is more commonly used, more succinct and no need for a third party template. -- Green C 20:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
|subscription=yes
:
{{cite news | url=https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-61177939 | title=Max hangs up his boots with £200m | work=[[The People]] |subscription=yes | via = [[Questia Online Library]] | date=March 31, 1996 | accessdate=March 4, 2013 | author=Gunn, Cathy}}
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)|url-access=
is a
relatively new feature that was added in October 2016. |via=
was
added to the documentation in 2014, although the parameter
existed in 2013 and probably before that. If you search for the word "mimic" in
this 2014 version of the CS1 module, you can see that at least one person took the time to explain that the via/subscription feature was specifically added to eliminate the need for a separate subscription required template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Jonesey95, I'm thinking a TFD might be the way to get consensus before BRFA. It's not a template merge but similar in effect. -- Green C 17:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Is someone taking the lead on making this happen. My hands are too busy with Citation Bot. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal is with CS1/2 templates that look like this:
{{cite news | url=https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-61177939 | title=Max hangs up his boots with £200m | work=[[The People]] | date=March 31, 1996 | accessdate=March 4, 2013 | author=Gunn, Cathy}}{{Subscription required|via=[[Questia Online Library]]}}
Replace with this:
{{cite news | url=https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-61177939 | title=Max hangs up his boots with £200m | work=[[The People]] | url-access=subscription | via = [[Questia Online Library]] | date=March 31, 1996 | accessdate=March 4, 2013 | author=Gunn, Cathy}}
As background, this template was created before CS1/2 had a |url-access=
feature. It also makes other tools like Citation bot difficult as it's not always clear which citation is being tagged with which {{subscription required}}
template.
The RfC will 1) change the documentation to be only for use in free-form citations 2) and for a bot to make the conversions of existing cases to the CS1/2 system (like in the example). Estimate is about 12k-15k cases. -- Green C 22:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@ AManWithNoPlan, Headbomb, Jonesey95, and Josve05a:
|para-access=
parameters is because it is not always unambiguous where the locks apply when there are multiple identifiers present. --
Izno (
talk) 03:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)|subscription=yes
correct? --
Green
C 04:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)|subscription=yes
instead of |url-access=subscription
, I would have no problem with that, since it preserves the choice to use text instead of an icon.
Toohool (
talk) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC){{
Link note}}
has over 35k transclusions, more than this one. It can contain a note indicating subscription required, yet another way to indicate this message. The template dates to 2012, so it's not old yet has so many usages that seem to duplicate other existing templates, strange. When looking for use-cases, it can't be found on the page, suggesting they are transcluded from somewhere, but I can't seem to find where. Does anyone know anything about it? --
Green
C 16:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC){{
ODNBsub}}
accounts for about 9k of them. --
Green
C 16:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
for example: <ref>Yeomans MR, Lee MD, Gray RW, French SJ. (2001). [http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v25/n8/pdf/0801653a.pdf Effects of test-meal palatability on compensatory eating following disguised fat and carbohydrate preloads.] Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 25(8):1215-24. {{PMID|11477507}}</ref> should i add after pmid template or after </ref> tag? <_> jindam, vani ( talk) 13:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Inline Templates | ||||
|
{{ Subscription}} and {{ Registration required}} should share the same styling. I'm not quite sure what the style should be. — Mrwojo ( talk) 01:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This template's text should read (Subscription required.)
instead of "(subscription required)" since it is used after citations, which end with "." I fixed it. A conforming edit has been made to {{
Registration required}}. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ
Contrib. 09:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Proper use of this and {{
Registration required}}
with citation templates based on
Template:Citation/core (i.e., almost all of them) is |postscript=. (subscription required)=
It should not be placed between the template and the </ref>
for this tool or that won't parse it as being part of the citation data (if you want tech details, you'd have to ask the maintainers of {{
Citation/core}}
). —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ
Contrib. 09:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
{{ Source}} is deprecated. Please use a more specific template. See the documentation for a list of suggested templates.
I have a question about the {{subscription required}} tag. An editor at DYK seems to feel that the tag is required on all sources that are avaiable at online databases that require subscription (e.g. Jstor and Springer) whether or not the sources are also available as paper sources. I don't think this is reasonable - and believe that per WP:PAYWALL the tag should only be used for sources that are only available through subscription and cannot be ordered through a library. What is the policy on that tag? If anyone wants to look at the article in question it is Maya ICBG bioprospecting controversy - one of the sources is a paper book edited volume that is also available for download from Springer, but which can be found in public libraries and research libraries. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
|url=
parameter. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 04:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)My adding a link to WP:V#Access to sources was reverted with "this link seems useless, if someone clicks on it they are probably looking for info about the particular subscription, not a general note that such references are acceptable". I believe, in keeping with the WP:INLINE standardization project, that this template should link to some guidance somewhere that explains either how subscription sources are used or how to find nonsubscription sources. Someone seeking info about the subscription itself would click the citation's URL, not this template, so the template is free to provide this additional guidance. Any ideas on the best target? JJB 17:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the via
parameter is perfectly acceptable in terms of tracking links to this template related to a particular source. however, I don't think we need to make it visible. I can simply hover over the link to see if the source is HighBeam or ProQuest or whatever. it just feels like unnecessary advertising. from the thread on
Plastikspork's talk page, it appears this was added as some sort of a compromise after
the TfD of template:HighBeam. I originally supported the addition of a second parameter, but on second thought I think it is unnecessary. however, I would still support it for tracking purposes, or as a way to add a class to this template, which would allow me to personally hide it or modify it for particular subscription services (e.g., color subscription required in another color if it is one to which I have personally subscribed, much the same way that I have changed other coloring in my own vector.css page).
Frietjes (
talk) 15:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Some of us have used essentially the following, which do not activate the title as a linkname; commonly, the one or two links displayed here are the first one(s) in the Refs or Extlinks entry that is illustrated.
These are my adaptations of usage by other editors. "(subscription required)", either freehand or generated by template, is included only where applicable. Inclusion and location of the dot(.) may vary.
Offhand I doubt that I have used the former myself. The latter does not "shout out" the service name. Both variants are transparent to me, as the "via" information is attached to retrieval. The approved template is transparent to me only because it does "shout out" the service name; as it attaches the information to the original publisher, it seems to identify the service as a secondary publisher. We credit the service purposefully, it seems to me, just as traditional citations credit the publishers of paper sources that are "reprints" (secondary publishers) but do not credit the printers of paper sources.
(From reading here today, I understand that we freeform writers undermine Wikipedia tracking usage of such services as Questia.)
-- P64 ( talk) 01:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a parameter is required for the common case where an abstract (often itself fairly useful) is available, but the full text is only available on payment? Maybe difficult to do in a non-wordy way? Pol098 ( talk) 12:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
i was looking for a way to note that a source allowed access to a limited number of articles. this seemed important, especially where one WP article is referencing multiple articles from a source that does that. i don't know if this is the best solution, but i used the "link note" used by P64 to do so. i did it on this page (i don't know how to make a 'jump' like P64 did above): /info/en/?search=Todd_Bentley i'm surprised this hasn't been brought up before. does anyone think this might be the best way to do this? oh, this is what i used: (~3 free articles allowed before subscription required) and then i put in or changed the access date parameter within the ref. Colbey84 ( talk) 05:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Would you use this template for example on a link to the NYT? NYT allows some number of free accesses per month, after which they require a subscription. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 19:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
When editing Felix Sunzu today, I found that this reference requires a subscription, but the Wayback Machine's archived page is complete. I removed the subscription required template, as this enables a user to read the full article. Should the template still be included? - Paul2520 ( talk) 13:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Given that a very large number of academic papers are available only to paid subscribers, that many Wikipedia citations do not indicate this, and that readers may assume by default that a scientific paper cited is paywalled if nothing is mentioned, maybe there is a requirement for a "Public access" template and a parameter in {{ Cite journal}} (or a message triggered by the existing "subscription=" if "no")? (Maybe something like this exists, but I haven't found it, and would have expected to have found it mentioned in the documentation for this template.) There would seem to be 3 main categories of access: public, on free-of-charge registration, and paid. Maybe we should also even distinguish "pay-per-view" and strict "paid subscriber-only" access? At present a reference with "subscription=yes" displays "(subscription required (help))", while "subscription=no" generates an error message (at the time of writing). At the very least, as a temporary measure "subscription=no" should not generate an error message. [1]
While technically "Cite journal" is a separate template, it would make sense to have a common approach. Best wishes, Pol098 ( talk) 11:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Ref with "subscription=no"
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
For example why do we do this:
{{cite news | url=https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-61177939 | title=Max hangs up his boots with £200m | work=[[The People]] | date=March 31, 1996 | accessdate=March 4, 2013 | author=Gunn, Cathy}}{{Subscription required|via=[[Questia Online Library]]}}
When we can do this:
{{cite news | url=https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-61177939 | title=Max hangs up his boots with £200m | work=[[The People]] | url-access=subscription | via = [[Questia Online Library]] | date=March 31, 1996 | accessdate=March 4, 2013 | author=Gunn, Cathy}}
There are some small differences but the second option is more commonly used, more succinct and no need for a third party template. -- Green C 20:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
|subscription=yes
:
{{cite news | url=https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-61177939 | title=Max hangs up his boots with £200m | work=[[The People]] |subscription=yes | via = [[Questia Online Library]] | date=March 31, 1996 | accessdate=March 4, 2013 | author=Gunn, Cathy}}
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)|url-access=
is a
relatively new feature that was added in October 2016. |via=
was
added to the documentation in 2014, although the parameter
existed in 2013 and probably before that. If you search for the word "mimic" in
this 2014 version of the CS1 module, you can see that at least one person took the time to explain that the via/subscription feature was specifically added to eliminate the need for a separate subscription required template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Jonesey95, I'm thinking a TFD might be the way to get consensus before BRFA. It's not a template merge but similar in effect. -- Green C 17:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Is someone taking the lead on making this happen. My hands are too busy with Citation Bot. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal is with CS1/2 templates that look like this:
{{cite news | url=https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-61177939 | title=Max hangs up his boots with £200m | work=[[The People]] | date=March 31, 1996 | accessdate=March 4, 2013 | author=Gunn, Cathy}}{{Subscription required|via=[[Questia Online Library]]}}
Replace with this:
{{cite news | url=https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-61177939 | title=Max hangs up his boots with £200m | work=[[The People]] | url-access=subscription | via = [[Questia Online Library]] | date=March 31, 1996 | accessdate=March 4, 2013 | author=Gunn, Cathy}}
As background, this template was created before CS1/2 had a |url-access=
feature. It also makes other tools like Citation bot difficult as it's not always clear which citation is being tagged with which {{subscription required}}
template.
The RfC will 1) change the documentation to be only for use in free-form citations 2) and for a bot to make the conversions of existing cases to the CS1/2 system (like in the example). Estimate is about 12k-15k cases. -- Green C 22:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@ AManWithNoPlan, Headbomb, Jonesey95, and Josve05a:
|para-access=
parameters is because it is not always unambiguous where the locks apply when there are multiple identifiers present. --
Izno (
talk) 03:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)|subscription=yes
correct? --
Green
C 04:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)|subscription=yes
instead of |url-access=subscription
, I would have no problem with that, since it preserves the choice to use text instead of an icon.
Toohool (
talk) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC){{
Link note}}
has over 35k transclusions, more than this one. It can contain a note indicating subscription required, yet another way to indicate this message. The template dates to 2012, so it's not old yet has so many usages that seem to duplicate other existing templates, strange. When looking for use-cases, it can't be found on the page, suggesting they are transcluded from somewhere, but I can't seem to find where. Does anyone know anything about it? --
Green
C 16:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC){{
ODNBsub}}
accounts for about 9k of them. --
Green
C 16:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
for example: <ref>Yeomans MR, Lee MD, Gray RW, French SJ. (2001). [http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v25/n8/pdf/0801653a.pdf Effects of test-meal palatability on compensatory eating following disguised fat and carbohydrate preloads.] Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 25(8):1215-24. {{PMID|11477507}}</ref> should i add after pmid template or after </ref> tag? <_> jindam, vani ( talk) 13:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)