This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Trappist the monk has there been a change in policy regarding the "free access" icons? You removed many of them here that I put next to clippings. The clippings are available as free access, that anybody without a subscription can click on and view. The only place I put those is on clippings. Why are you removing them? — Maile (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Trappist the monk says otherwise, I think I put competing templates on some sources. Those which carried "free access" also carried "subscription required". If that was the case, my error. I have removed the "subscription required" from all the "free access". Hope that resolves this issue. — Maile (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did more than just remove the {{free access}} templates. I came here because of this reference (|language=3, col. 1) so I fixed that. And I noticed that you had used constructs like this:
which contradicts {{free access}} so I removed the {{free access}} templates and replaced the {{subscription required}} templates with |url-access=subscription – this latter was not what I should have done and in subsequent edits I removed those parameters.
In cs1|2, linked titles (|url= in combination with |title=) are free-to-read (this is the norm) unless |url-access= is set to one of its allowed values. There is no need to highlight the norm by appending {{free access}} to a cs1|2 template – and why |url-access=free is not allowed.
{{subscription required}} should not be used in the cs1|2 |work= (and aliases) parameter because |work= contributes to the citation's metadata. When {{subscription required}} is used in |work= it is processed before the cs1|2 template is processed so, for the example shown above, cs1|2 gets this:
Oakland Tribune – via Newspapers.com <span style="font-size:0.95em; font-size:95%; color: var( --color-subtle, #555 )">(subscription required)</span> [[Category:Subscription required using via]][[Category:Pages containing links to subscription-only content]]
most of that does not belong in the cs1|2 template's metadata. This is why the cs1|2 templates support |subscription= and |via=.
Not convinced that there is any reason to be retaining the {{free access}} templates. Highlighting the norm is akin to shouting and overlinking. The manual nature of that template's use results in discrepancies: were it important (it's not) to highlight all free-to-read sources then, surely, this one should also be highlighted (and the cs1|2 templates would have support for such highlighting). Also, your revert of my edit re-broke this reference. Newspapers.com is, for lack of a better term, a re-publisher of these sources. As such, that fact should not be written like this:
Your argument is a larger scope that needs to be discussed elsewhere. I use the autofill feature of drop-down templates in the edit window. They don't necessarily add the name of the newspaper, especially with clippings, but merely say it's from Newspapers.com. As someone who works a lot with given projects, I know my fellow editors often want to know the newspaper name, as they have other means of accessing those newspapers. Editors need to know the original source when possible. Who would know The Twice-A-Week Messenger? Not the average Wikipedia editor who is subscribed to Newspapers.com Since this probably affects every Wikipedia editor who has Newspapers.com via the Library service, I think you should post your view of this on whichever project page would be appropriate, and if approved, have a bot specifically approved to make those corrections. And you would also have to correct how the auto fill does its magic. Editors who use the auto fill shouldn't have to go back and correct the fill on every single entry, and given how many millions of editors Wikipedia has, shouldn't be required to have that knowledge before using the tool. — Maile (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite news |title=Amazing Story of "St. Cyr" Who Married Two Rich Widows |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/19619563/amazing_story_of_st_cyr_who_married/ |work=The Twice-A-Week Messenger}}
In that, there is no mention of Newspaper.com (except as part of the original url). Apparently, nothing magical occurs that appends the text 'at Newspaper.com' to the name of the newspaper which suggests that that text must have been appended manually. Neither is there the {{free access}} template so it too must have been added manually. If not, then there must be some other tool. What tool?
With RefToolbar, the name of the newspaper does end up in |work= so [your] fellow editors [will] know the newspaper name. Of course [editors] need to know the original source and it is highly likely that many will not know of The Twice-A-Week Messenger. So what? That's why the cs1|2 periodical templates have |work= (and |journal= and |magazine= and |newspaper= and |website=).
It is good to tell readers (and editors) that the deliverer of the source is Newspapers.com. That is properly done with the |via= parameter. Since RefToolbar doesn't, apparently, obtain publication date and in-source location information from wherever it gets its data, that must have also been added manually. Since you must do that, I presume that at the same time you have been adding the 'at Newspapers.com' text to the work text box. May I suggest that instead, you add the text '|via=Newspapers.com' instead. This forms the correct parameter when inserted and protects the citation's metadata from contamination.
In your opening post in this topic you wrote: has there been a change in policy regarding the "free access" icons? In your second post, you pinged Editor Nikkimaria, asking a variant of that same question. Where is the policy that you were wondering about? Surely it must exist if you are asking about it and are claiming that it supports/requires the addition of {{free access}} to every Newspapers.com citation. There is Wikipedia:Newspapers.com which shows a correctly formatted {{cite news}} template (uses |via=) with {{free access}} as an example. There is nothing on that page that suggests a requirement for {{free access}} nor did I find any mention of such a requirement on that project page's talk page. There are, I think, two discussions there that are relevant here:
Prior to 28 July 2016, Wikipedia:Newspapers.com required (or at the least, strongly suggested) that clipping citations include the {{open access}} icon. That constraint was removed with this edit (a fortnight after your application).
