Template talk:Infobox newspaper/Archive 1

Archive 1

Scope

I would suggest that this is ok for newspapers with a general topic coverage, but not for trade newspapers. For trade newspapers, I've started using {{Infobox Journal}}, but I'm not wholly comfortable with this.

Thoughts?

Courtland 16:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Publisher

No infobox about newspapers should lack an element for Publisher, this being the person who has executive responsibility for the operation and editorial policy of a newspaper. The editor would, of course, be subordinate to the publisher. I'm hesitant to change lightly a template that's so heavily linked-to, especially since I am a template novice. Hence, I will throw this suggestion to the four winds, hoping someone else will choose to run with it:

1. Add Publisher to the template.
2. Change Editor-in-chief to simply Editor since that term may be more generally accurate.
3. Website should be Web site. (Yes, this is pedantic.)

— JonRoma 04:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with 1 and 2. Wholeheartedly disagree with 3. jareha 23:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding 3, there does not seem to be a consistent style on Wikipedia, nor have I found a policy/recommendation favoring either website or web site. The article Website uses the website form, yet cites several fairly weighty authorities — Oxford English Dictionary and Associated Press Stylebook — that prefer web site.

Though I prefer the latter form, ideally one form or the other would be chosen, and used consistently throughout Wikipedia. One possible way of sidestepping the debate would be to simply use site which, accompanied by a URL and the link symbol, could be enough context to be considered self-explanatory. Thoughts? — JonRoma 04:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm biased for the rapid evolution of language. This opinion is almost entirely my own (i.e. I found a great argument a while back and lost the source). That said, "site" may not offer enough clarity. jareha 07:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

{{{political}}} is now optional.

The {{{political}}} parameter is now optional. The article on The New York Times was running into trouble with this. Note that the {{if defined}} template refers to a subtemplate, Template:Infobox Newspaper/Political position. Omphaloscope » talk 15:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:if defined is becoming a deprecated meta-template. I've replaced it with a CSS method which acts the same. -- Netoholic @ 21:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be better just to remove this option? Intangible 23:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the option is still useful for newspapers in the UK and other places where newspapers formally align themselves with political parties - at least this is what I've gleaned from the NYT discussion. However, I'd suggest removing it from the Chicago Tribune example on the template page, since in the US folks will rarely agree and sometimes get into edit wars over this. In fact, reverts and disagreement over Chicago Tribune can be seen here. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Vertical alignment?

Netoholic, I support your replacement of the deprecated HTML alignment tags with their CSS equivalents, but am curious why you removed the vertical-align: top styling (most of which pre-dated my recent rework of the template). From an readability point of view, I am of the view that cells making up a row ought to be explicitly styled so that the top (or only) line of any textual content always lines up across these cells. Your removal of this means that such alignment is only guaranteed when the textual content is short enough to not linewrap. — JonRoma 08:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Vertical alignment is already specified in the infobox class in MediaWiki:Common.css. As such, specifying it in the template is redundant. -- Netoholic @ 08:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic:

Ah, but it isn't truly redundant, because the style definition in MediaWiki:Common.css doesn't seem to strictly adhere to the CSS2 specification. The germane part of the style sheet is as follows:

.infobox tr {
   vertical-align: top;
}

The CSS specification, in Section 10.8. Line height calculations: the 'line-height' and 'vertical-align' properties states that the vertical-align style element applies to inline-level and table-cell elements (emphasis added). Further, the vertical-align examples in the specification at Section 17. Tables are all applied to the table cell elements <td> and <th> rather than to the row-level element <tr> as is done in MediaWiki:Common.css. The fact that some browsers allow applying the vertical-align style element to the <tr> tag does not mean that browsers are required to support this variation from the standard, and some browsers in fact do not do so.

It appears that a standards-compliant style sheet would include the following styling in place of what's there today:

.infobox td,
.infobox th {
   vertical-align: top;
}

This change would seem to produce the desired consistent alignment behavior in a browser-independent way. Do you concur with this suggestion? — JonRoma 09:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. In fact, I have some other changes to the td and th styling which also need to go in. I just need an admin to make all the changes. -- Netoholic @ 09:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! I was going to look into proposing the style change when it's daylight here, but if you want to carry the ball instead, that's fine with me. So that I can follow, please leave word on my talk page. Thanks and Happy New Year. — JonRoma 09:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Price

Should there be a line for the cost of the newspaper?

i.e. USD 0.75 (EUR 0.62) for USA Today, and GBP 0.70 (USD 1.24, EUR 1.02) Monday-Friday & GBP 1.40 (USD 2.47, EUR 2.04) Saturday for The Guardian? 159753 12:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

While this information could be useful if it were kept up to date, my suspicion is that it will prove to be more of an annoyance than a help. Some newspapers have different costs for different locations (city vs. suburbs), and this quickly turns into a rat's nest. At any rate, any newspaper of any significance ought to have this information on their web site and should therefore be readily available through the web link that's already part of this template. — JonRoma 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, the the UK and in much of Europe, prices for newspapers don't change on where they are. Many newspapers don't have this at all so it would be useful.159753 13:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This would be useful information. Price doesn't change much so keeping it up to date wouldn't be a huge burden. Encouraging labeling the price with a year would help solve that and could provide additional information on the last price change. This should be added as an optional field.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Language parameter?

Might I suggest adding a parameter for the language(s) of the newspaper? That is a rather basic fact about it, though I'm not sure whether it is too obvious when the location of the headquarters is given. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 21:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I added the field. -- User:Docu

Periodical ID

I also suggest adding a field for the ISSN ID. Academic publication infoboxes such as scientific journals already include this. Evolauxia 19:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

An optional field for ISSN is now available. -- User:Docu

I have added a "oclc" parameter as well as a consequence of User:Keesiewonder finding one which did not have an ISSN listed for the OCLC. see Talk:The Carillon. John Vandenberg 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper circulation

Numbers on circulation would be interesting. Seabhcán 14:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The field had been added, but not updated in the Chicago Tribune sample and many other uses of the template. Thus I made it optional. -- User:Docu

"political" line

Although I like having it included, this line seems to be more trouble than it is worth, providing openings for POV accusations, edit wars and POV seeping into a factual infobox. (See New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

In various arguments over the line, some have defined it to be for the entire Newspaper, others for the Editorial Page and others in terms of who writes columns for the paper.

It also opens things up to subjectivity with respect to what a "Liberal" position is or what a "Conservative" position is. Especially tricky with extreme partisans who assume they are in the center of the political spectrum (which in and of itself is difficult to define - eg a hard core leftist probably thinks anything to the right of Mother jones or Daily Kos is conservative and vice versa with an extreme rightist who thinks the NY Post is a Liberal rag).

for that reason and for inconsistent use of the line across multiple entires, I suggest it be deleted fromt he template.

One thing you have forgot, is a big difference between America and Europe is that European papers are usually well known for being politically biased. People know that the Times of London is centre-right (conservative), Le Monde is centre-left/centre and the Daily Mail is right. In Europe some political parties do have there own newspaper such as L'Unità with Democrats of the Left, or linked to a newspaper like the Daily Telegraph with the British Conservative Party.

I don't think "political position" is an appropriate item for an infobox. Infobox parameters should have objective criteria. There is no room in an infobox for an NPOV treatment of each side of the issue. The best place to discuss a newspaper's political leaning is in the text of the article, where we can cite critics and provide some real background. It doesn't look like the inclusion of {{political}} was ever discussed in detail here. I'd support its removal. Rhobite 20:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Rhobite, which is why I raised the issue here. It adds too much subjectivity to the Infobox and is open to interpretation by partisans of all stripes. A quick perusal of the LA Times, NY Post, NY Daily News, WaPo, WSJ and NY Times pages shows a real inconsistency in how the label is used and at least two major disagreements/edit wars. This should be removed and moved to the text of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.213.196 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, I support its removal too. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 22:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Intangible 02:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How about making it optional piece? It is relevant to say, British papers and inrelevant to say, American papers.159753 11:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

good point. I didn't consider the fact that European papers tend to formally align themselves with particular parties/ideologies when I raised the point.

It appears the line is already optional, so instead of deleting here, I decided to Be Bold and delete individually for major US papers of and see what the response would be.(the variability and inconsistency in usage of the line in some of these infoboxes was astounding, some pretty major POV in some as well).213.86.213.196 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

When I created this template I had Swedish newspapers in mind, so therefor teh "political"-field was intended to be used only for the official label of the newspaper's editorial page. As said above, it would be impossible and completely POV to try to value the content of the rest of the newspaper, especially the news section. I don't know much about the case in other countries, but at least in Sweden all newspapers have an official label of their editorial pages. What's the state in other countries, does for example Le Monde and New York Times have any official labels of their respective editorial pages? Perhaps it wasn't so wise to name the line to just "political", maybe it should be renamed to "editorial" or something? /Slarre 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to reopen this discussion by saying that I agree that the "political" line should be deleted from the infobox. I won't repeat any of the previously mentioned concerns, but my main concern is that political alignment is extremely hard to find a citation for (except in the cases of papers that are officially connected to political parties, in which case it makes sense to mention the party with which the paper is affiliated, but not its general ideology). --Tsk070 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest adding it back, but only for cases where there is an official position of the paper or it's editorial page. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

political -> political allegiance

Maybe it should be renamed to political allegiance, to denote the relationship to a political party? Otherwise it seems to be a parameter that can only result in POV. If a newspaper has a 'conservative' journalist, it can be said so in the article, this does not make the newspaper as a whole 'conservative'. Intangible 14:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it, being WP:BOLD. Intangible 15:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, this still results in POV and OR as it encourages editors to pin a single label upon newspapers which may have had various stances throughout their history and have supported different political parties from time to time. I raised the matter at the reliable sources noticeboard where there was some support for the point that this was not capable of being sourced in a simple and reliable way. I am therefore removing this entry. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And no consensus for the change to the long-standing template. Oppose removing the entry. Newspapers which do not use the entry do not show it. Thanks! (BTW, RSN did NOT support this change, and it was over a month back in archive 29 for those who wish to read it.) Collect (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Website

This infobox shouldn't require a website parameter if the newspaper has ceased publication, since it could have ceased publication long before the Internet was invented. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree... I changed the template to reflect that. — Linnwood 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

hCard Microformat

I would like us to add the hCard microformat (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microformats) to this template. I can advise on the required mark-up, but I'm not familiar with template code editing. Andy Mabbett 12:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've managed to do that, after all; though we still need to add "class="url" to the href for the website; but that's in another template. Andy Mabbett 12:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It breaks, where "name" (a required field for hCard) is an image, rather than text :-( Any suggestions, before I revert it? Andy Mabbett 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Alt text

Further to the above, in, for example:

{{Infobox Newspaper
| name                = [[Image:The New York Times.svg|225px|center]]

how can we add alt text for the image? Andy Mabbett 12:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Found it:

{{Infobox Newspaper
| name                = [[Image:The New York Times.svg|225px|center|This is alt text]]

Andy Mabbett 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Circulation dates

The circulation statistic in the infobox is a good addition, but it needs to have an additional parameter to specify a date, such as "circulation year = 2007" to produce "2007 circulation" or something to that effect, and just "Circulation" if the year parameter is missing, with a strong recommendation in the documentation to include a specific frame of reference when using the circulation statistic. When looking at the circulation statistic for a magazine that has been in print for 40 years, I find it pretty vague as to when those circulation figures are from. While I'm rambling on the topic, perhaps a "peak circulation = " field and a "peak circulation year = " field would also be useful optional parameters to show a comparison of modern circulation vs. circulation in the publication's heyday? Just a thought. Cruzin07 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sister newspapers

I didn't find parameter Sister newspapers here, though I think it could be useful to have such. I made the same template at Bulgarian Wikipedia (you may see it bg:Шаблон:Вестник) and added Sister newspapers there \сродни вестници\, I don't what to work here, coz we have too much to do in bgwiki, so I'm just giving the idea. Regards, --Aleksd (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done I did what you, Aleksd, said and updated the doc too.

But what is a sister newspaper? One that shares editorial staff & writers (like The Guardian and The Observer, or one that just happens to be published by the same group, like the News of the World and The Times? I'd contend that for the latter pair "Stablemates" is the term of the art. HughesJohn (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please add the answer to the above question to the /doc page? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Logos and page spreads

I've removed the logos from a few newspaper articles using this template. As the logo already appears on the front page, and as both are fair use images, I would argue that this is a breach of our non-free image policy. I also happen to think it looks rather lame. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

With no response here, I'm going to assume there is no argument for keeping these, so I will continue to remove them. --John (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't do that. The status quo is that the infobox provides space for logos. A consensus must be built before anobody starts sporadic removal of images. I'm in favour of displaying logos in infoboxes. Among other reasons, because not all newspaper frontpages have a big logo that's visible at 190px rendering. A permanent removal of the possibility of displaying logos would be a fundamental change in wikipedia practice and policy. Possibly Village pump level. Because, this is exactly the same situation as with gaming consoles and many other things. This could be a lengthy debate, because many editors who have spent manhours of work finding pdfs, extracting vectors, and uploading them, will use every possible argument in order to prevent their work from being flushed down the toilet. - SSJ ☎ 19:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am only interested in encyclopedic and policy-based arguments here, not ones based on precedent. From the point of view of the user, and bearing in mind our rather restrictive policy on non-free image use, what is the over-riding reason to display these on articles which already show the logo on a front-page image? --John (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, many frontpages don't have big logos. It's very natural to draw parallels and underline that this is a fundamental question in wikipedia policy. - SSJ ☎ 20:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I am concerned that in articles which already show the front page spread, adding a logo as well not only looks silly but breaches our rules on non-free content. --John (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Could we at least agree that these should not be displayed on infoboxes which already have a page spread on which the logo is prominent? I really think this is gilding the lily. --John (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Almost 6 years later we still do not have any rationale for duplicating the logos; once on the front-page and once in a separate field. The intention when the logo field was introduced was to substitute in cases where there was no image of a front page. It was never intended to display both. Why would we do that? It looks ridiculous. See also WP:ICONDECORATION --John (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, absolutely. I think that is well agreed at this point. (I only add this comment here after years of no objection since someone has recently asserted that no such consensus has been reached.) It seems obvious that we should not add the logo when it is clearly redundant with the front page picture. Such duplication would be ugly, redundant, and not helpful to readers in any way. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The argument above contains two arguments: one is policy-based (not using two non-free images in an article) and the other is based on what is the best encyclopedic experience for the reader. There's an important point that hasn't been raised on this page: a great many newspaper logos are not copyrighted. In such cases, I believe there is no policy-based justification for removing them from articles (though I am making no comment here on the best reader experience).

Some public domain logos (like The Stranger) are properly stored on Commons and labeled as public domain; others (like Hamodia) are improperly labeled as "fair use" when they should be simply transferred to Commons and labeled PD. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This topic is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism#Nonfree logos in newspaper infoboxes. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing Price Tag

Similar to what was recently done to Infobox Magazines, I am removing the Price tag: it conforms to WP:NOT:DIR, where prices should not be shown in WP articles without good reason. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#WP:NOTDIR w.r.t. newspapers 67.101.7.89 (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

• I agree on the grounds that pricing is parochial and does not provide a global view of the subject. For example, major newspapers such as the Financial Times have an international circulation and so will have a variety of ephemeral prices in multiple currencies. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new fields

Could some add the following?

• {{established}} for the launch date
• {{employees}} for the number of employees
• {{tagline}} for the tag line, if it exists (e.g., "All the news that's fit to print".)

--Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of established (it should use {{Start date}}), but staff are often - and increasingly - pooled across more than one title, so an accurate figure is impossible. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Digital Edition

What about a digital edition parameter below the website parameter? It could provide a link to the digital edition (i.e. pdf or some online reader version of the paper).

ISSN not showing

Can anyone please tell me why this addition of an ISSN isn't showing up? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Automated linking considered harmful

I've reverted two recent edits, which caused some fields to be automatically linked. This is not a good idea (and has been rejected for other infoboxes), because it can lead to bad links. For instance, if the editor of a newspaper is called "Bill Gates" the link should be to

[[Bill Gates (newspaper editor|Bill Gates]]

and automated linking does not allow for this. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Though isn't it better to have the links there and for users to disambiguate them where necessary? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that'd make it awkward to list someone who has no article, when a namesake does. You're right :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What to do about newspapers when they abandon newsprint

Newspapers like The Christian Science Monitor, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Portland Tribune, and Kansas City Kansan are abandoning newsprint altogether (KCK), reducing their print circulation (CSM, PT), or possibly even closing down shop altogether (SPI, if it doesn't go online-only). If a newspapers folds, it's obvious how to reflect that in the newspaper infobox. But what's the infobox strategy for the other cases? Use web-only for the format (digital edition might apply in some cases), switch to {{Infobox Website}}? include both Infobox Website and infobox newspaper, filling both in to reflect the change? 68.167.252.160 (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

• I'd suggest switching to infobox website. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

One option currently used in The New York Times article shows a combined print/digital circulation, then on the next line another number with (digital). Some audits break it down by print, digital facsimile (i.e. PDFs), and digital non-facsimile, and one could present those numbers any number of ways, using different lines and parentheses similar to the Times. Agyle (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

changing names of fields to affect discussions on a single paper

One editor is currently changing the allegiance of Daily Mail repeatedly wihout using Talk to get consensus. Alas he had decided that ediing the template would justify his editing of fully sourced material on that to make his edits suddenly correct would affect every other paper on WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• The word allegiance is misleading in many cases as it indicates a formal party membership or alliance. I have tried the word alignment instead which seems to better convey the position of most newspapers - that they have a political stance rather than a firm association. This is the usage at The Guardian, say, which currently has "Centre-left" for this parameter. This seems clearly an alignment rather than an allegiance as it is too fuzzy a position for it to be considered an allegiance. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Alas, your timing along with your continued changes aganst concensus on Daily Mail made me think you did this to buttress you changes. Collect (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

italics

The field "Sister newspapers" needs to have its output set in italics, since all newspaper names need to be set off in italics. However, I'm not template-savvy enough to do it myself. Can someone else take a stab at it? Esrever ^(klaT) 18:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Using name parameter for logo

I noticed that many articles that use this infobox don't have the logo parameter filled in, but instead, the name parameter contains the logo, for example here. Is this acceptable practice? Svick (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Images should never be used in place of text. The infobox template now has a separate {{{logo}}} field, so there is no reason not to use it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Something for Smackbot to patrol, perhaps? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the benefit of including the logo in cases where we also show a sample front page, containing the logo? --John (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, Interwiki

ca:Plantilla:Infotaula de publicacions periòdiques —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferbr1 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done, but you could have done it by yourself. Svick (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

if I knew how he would have done. Thanks. Ferbr1 (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your addition of interwiki link to the doc subpage, because, as far as I know, template documentation don't use interwikis (I think it's because they are useless when the templates themselves are already linked). Also, your interwiki was showing up on the main template page too. If you want, you can read how template inclusion works. Svick (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Student Newspaper

Is there any real reason why Template:Infobox Student Newspaper needs to exist as a separate template to this one? Would anyone be opposed to that template being integrated into here? --Kwekubo (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No reason whatsoever. Go ahead and perform the merge. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

italic title

{{editprotected}} Can {{Italictitle}} be added to the template as per WP:ITALICTITLE? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I thought it was protected. Did it myself. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have undid exactly that change to this templates few days ago, because I don't think this template should do that. Yeah, articles about newspapers should transclude {{italic title}}, but I think it's better to do it explicitly. Imagine that e.g. an article about a political party had a section about a newspaper published by that party that isn't notable enough by itself and that has this infobox beside it. I'm not sure something like this actually happens, but I really think this template shouldn't do something unrelated to its function – displaying an box with important info about the subject. Also, WP:ITALICTITLE doesn't say that it should be done through an infobox template. Svick (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The italic title should be removed. Many newspaper articles incorporate the paper's city into the title, even if it's not part of the name of the paper (see Rochester Times-Union, for instance). (Yet another reason we never should have opened this can of worms.) Powers ^T 01:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. {{Italictitle}} allows italics to be disabled in cases where it's actually appropriate very easily, your example has already been fixed, and the default behavior is appropriate for the vast majority of uses of the template. I understand that you're piqued at the maintenance burden involved in fixing the edge cases, but that's not a valid reason to destroy the value added for the typical case. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox captions

Editors might be interested in this discussion at WikiProject Academic Journals as it concerns a very similar template. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OCLC doesn't show up

I've edited a couple different newpaper articles and added the OCLC number to them, but it doesn't seem to show up in the infobox. Can somebody look at this please? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 10:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked Dayton Daily News, and it shows up there. Is there one in particular that you have found? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This was my mistake. I was usiing "OCLC" instead of "oclc". Uppercase vs. lowercase. Uppercase does not work for some reason. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 14:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I could make both work, but if it's not common, then it's probably not necessary. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

New para archive

It would be helpful for editors trying to repair {{deadlink}}s to be able to readily find the archive site for a serial, particularly a newspaper. To some extent users of Infobox journal have addressed this with the use of |link1= or |link2=... for that purpose. I've suggested at Template talk:Infobox journal that a new parameter "archive" be added to standardize this link. Your comments there would be welcome.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Add 'motto' field

I think a 'motto' field should be added to the template and infobox. Most newspapers have them; see some of the entries in this search. Some of the mottoes are quite well known, with the New York Times' "All The News That's Fit To Print" being the most obvious example. The motto could either be placed up top, below type and format, or at the bottom, just above website. Any opinions? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As the "motto" can be in the body of the article, there is no actual need to create yet another field for the infobox. And I demur on your "most." Collect (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

relaunched?

How come the |relaunched= field is not working/doesnt show? It is an useful field afterall...mijotoba (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 May 2013

Sir,

Please add the position of "President" to the newspaper template. This postion should be above Editor in Chief. For a number of small to medium sized papers in the USA, Canada but especially oversees in India, W. Africa and South Africa, the president position is extremely important to the paper, more so that the Editor-in-chief. 24.128.6.199 (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• To clarify, the documentation says that "President" is an optional field, but when you actually attempt to use it it doesn't show in the infobox. I'm not all that well-versed in template syntax so I'll leave it to someone else to incorporate this. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The IP editor added it to the documentation, I have removed it. If the field is added to the template then the doc should be updated at that time. I'm fine if it gets added to the template(don't care much), but the doc and the current state of the template should remain consistent.Naraht (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done. Documentation changed as well. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 20:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Free and director of interactive swapped

The Free and director of interactive labels were showing up as swapped. I think I fixed the problem. Also the RNI field (added by 991joseph (talk · contribs) on July 23, 2013‎) is not showing up.--Auric talk 17:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The RNI field is showing up in the Infobox newspaper but the link takes you to a page with a 404 error. You can search the RNI database for a newspaper. The results come up in a popup window. It might be better to just show the RNI number without a link. G. Moore 14:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Slogan

Can someone please add a "Slogan" (some call it "motto") field to this infobox? Usually papers have a slogan, like the New York Times "All the news that's fit to print". Thanks
Mercy11 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Advertising Director?

Why is "Opinion Editor" listed in the TemplateData section and nowhere else in the template? --CmdrDan (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@CmdrDan: are you asking about |advertisingdirector="Advertising Director" or |opeditor="Opinion Editor"? the section heading is different from your question. I did remove "Advertising Director" from the TemplateData, since it was not in the template. Frietjes (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Former title(s)

Would be a useful extra field in this infobox, for use when a newspaper changes its title. PamD 16:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes the list is either convoluted or disputed. ("New York" is to be understood in the following titles) Let us consider the New York World Journal Tribune which was the child of the New York World-Telegram and Sun, which was the child of The Sun and World-Telegram, which was the child of the World and the Telegram, which was originally the Evening Telegram and child of The Herald; the New York Journal American, child of the New York American (previously New York Journal) and the Evening Journal; and the New York Herald Tribune, itself the child of the Tribune (previously Daily Tribune) and the Herald (oldest of the extant papers - founded in 1835, and parent of ... the Evening Telegram - causing a "marriage of cousins". Not to mention how to fit in the International Herald Tribune, renamed the International New York Times and having the same parentship as the Herald Tribune and the parentship of the Times, as well as the Washington Post just to further confuse what such an addition to the inbox would cover. And that genealogy did not include the W-J-T lineage, just the Herald Tribune lineage. Clear?

Sorry - we would end up with the equivalent of "newspaper genealogy" if we started this. Collect (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, Collect, it could become very complicated. Wondering if it could be somewhat simplified by doing one or more of the following:

• Adding a field 'preceding_title' or 'last_former_title'; this would be akin to restricting the financial information in Template:Infobox Company to 2 years.
• Suggesting that a section be devoted to "newspaper genealogy" if appropriate, maybe a subsection of history called 'predecessors'.
• making sure that all redirects from former names are in fact tagged with {{redr|from former name}} or equivalent.
• when linking from a citation (for instance where a citation comes from the International Herald Tribune, which is now the International New York Times) that the ISO 4 code for the name of the periodical at the time is used and this is linked to the current name of the newspaper via redirection and appending {{redr|from ISO 4|from former name}}.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC) (including user name link for notification ... Pam)

In too many cases, multiple papers are merged in some sort of sequence - the World-Journal-Tribune would be a total mess. I suspect what would be of more use would be an article listing the antecedents of major newspapers and magazines, and then linking to that list where applicable in the individual articles. This would allow for the multiple publications claiming in some way to be descended from some earlier publications etc. Collect (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Native name

The infobox should add a parameter original name / native name (may be |script-title= or |transliteration= also for non-latin character to latin transliteration, such as Japanese/ Chinese to its respective transliteration) Matthew_hk tc 17:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 June 2018

Please add an |eissn= parameter above below the |issn= parameter and allow for variation in capitalization for both. Some newspapers have both an ISSN and eISSN, such as The New York Times: 0362-4331 (print); 1553-8095 (web). The Citation Style 1 citation family has an |eissn=, as does {{Infobox journal}}. The addition of such a parameter here would significantly improve the template. Thank you. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC); revised 01:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have exactly zero experience with template editing and this is my first attempt, so hopefully I didn't FUBAR anything or make a novice mistake, Martin. I apologize if I did. You can review my sandbox edit implementing the requested change and adding capitalization variation here. I tested it in the testcase through the "Show preview" button and it appears to work exactly as intended. For the record, I used the code found in {{Infobox magazine}}, which I then compressed and conformed to the markup in this template. {{Infobox journal}}'s template source code was too complex for me to understand just yet, despite needing to consult the help pages to understand how to achieve this edit.

I have modified the above edit request to include the capitalization variation change I made. If that change should be requested in a separate edit request for some procedural reason, I can do so. Thank you for your time; this was an instructive experience. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. After looking into the workings of {{ISSN link}} I realised that all that logic was already included in that template, so we can just use that template directly. Let me know if everything is working okay now! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing no problems, Martin; thanks for implementing it and simplifying the code! I have already added the eISSNs for The New York Times (diff) and Chicago Tribune (diff), as well, and I have updated the documentation. Hopefully, I am not missing anything. Have a great day / night! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

RNI doesn't show up

I've added RNI number in article Sarkar Ki Upalabdhiya. But its link by default is displayed as: [1], which is a 'Server 404 error/ File not found'. Can somebody look at this please? Thanks. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 12:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the link to RNI, because they have changed their website so the link in this template didn't work anymore. If someone knows the new code, please feel free to update the template. Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Political alignment parameter

I know the political alignment parameter has been discussed many times before, here and various other places, but after a few editors decided the parameter was to be removed from all Australian newspaper articles [2] [3] [4] [5] after a short discussion at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board (edit summary: removed subjective political alignment as per consensus at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board), I think it may be beneficial to review how the parameter is used more broadly.

Some opinions would be useful, before a formal RfC if necessary. Personally, I think the parameter is more trouble than its worth, but I don't like the idea of editors from a Wikiproject deciding it is forbidden from a subset of articles unilaterally. Should the parameter be removed from the infobox altogether? Should it only be used in support from reliable sources? Should it only be used for papers from certain countries? A clear, consistent approach (with clear instruction in the documentation on the template page) would help avoid disputes about when to use it and what should be included if it is used -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Media of the Australia

This template displays the text "Media of the Australia", in at least some cases, e.g. Collie Mail. Other examples appear in Special:WhatLinksHere/Media_of_the_Australia.

Presumably the use of "the" is for such cases as "Media of the US", but it's not at all obvious how to use the template to display "Media of country", which is probably more common than "Media of the country", so probably ought to be the default. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: It's because of this code in Template:Infobox newspaper:

| below      = {{#if:{{{publishing_country|}}} | {{ubl |style=line-height:1.3em; padding-top:0.4em; border-top: 1px solid #aaa
| {{#ifexist: Media of the {{delink|{{{publishing_country}}} }} | [[Media of the {{delink|{{{publishing_country}}} }}]] | {{#ifexist: Media of {{delink|{{{publishing_country}}} }} | [[Media of {{delink|{{{publishing_country}}} }}]] }} }}
| {{#ifexist: List of newspapers in the {{delink|{{{publishing_country}}} }} | [[List of newspapers in the {{delink|{{{publishing_country}}} }}|List of newspapers]] | {{#ifexist: List of newspapers in {{delink|{{{publishing_country}}} }} | [[List of newspapers in {{delink|{{{publishing_country}}} }}|List of newspapers]] }} }}
}} }}

Basically, since Media of the Australia exists (even though it's a redirect), that link has precedence over Media of Australia. The thing to do is to ask Nat965 (talk · contribs) why they created Media of the Australia, and if possible, get it deleted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've nominated it for deletion. [6][7][8] Mitch Ames (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at my contribs around that date, I can't see any reason why I created it. Nat965 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Link political list below

Alongside the other |below= params, would it be possible to add a link to List of anarchist periodicals when |political=[[Anarchist]] alongside Media of the United States and List of newspapers, or in lieu of the latter? Better than shoving it in a See also section below. czar 02:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 June 2019

As stated in Editor-in-chief,

The highest ranking editor of a publication may also be titled editor, managing editor, or executive editor, but where these titles are held while someone else is editor-in-chief, the editor-in-chief outranks the others.

It seems more appropriate if Editor-in-chief is placed the highest. –Wefk423 (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Wefk423 (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Executive Editor?

Is there a way to specify "Executive Editor"? Rather obscure paper called the New York Times is significantly run by Dean Baquet as "Executive Editor", yet there is no provision to list him as such? (Also Jospeh Kahn, Managing Editor.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentborg (talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 October 2019

Please add {{{deppublisher}}} Heather Bakken CapitalCanadian (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change of link target for ISSN_link template

Because {{ISSN link}} is currently serving up empty search results for newspaper ISSNs, I've proposed a change to that template, to use issn.org rather than Worldcat. Please direct any comments thither. -- Visviva (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

dirvisuals

The dirvisuals parameter was edited into Chicago Tribune page. When I save the page, I get a warning that this parameter is not recognized. But when I look at the the template documention, dirvisuals is there. Maybe the template itself needs to be updated to match the documentation? M.boli (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Good catch; both "Director of Visuals/Graphics" and "Director of Video" seem to have been added to the /doc page a few months back by a well-intentioned editor who presumably (and understandably) was a bit confused as to how these templates work. I've commented them out for now, so we don't confuse anyone further; but these seem like sensible fields to have. Would the correct titles in fact be "Director of Visuals/Graphics" and "Director of Video"? Or should it be just "Director of Visuals" for the first one? That slash seems odd. -- Visviva (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove italics for page title

There is no rationale for italicizing the title of the page Template:Infobox newspaper, as that template is not a ship, book, film, or other creative work in the sense intended by WP:ITALICTITLE. Can we get a consensus to change |italic title={{{italic title|}}} to | italic title = {{{italic title|<noinclude>no</noinclude>}}} as per {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox film}}, et al? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I waited over a week, and I'm placing {{Edit template-protected}} per its guidance. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done I had to fiddle with the documentation page as well, but I made it work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Newspapers commonly have cartoonists

The template needs to have a cartoonist entry. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Free online archives"

The label for |free= seems very odd. Why do we specify "free online archives" rather than just saying "online archives"? Would we want to include anything for newspapers that don't have free archives? And what is our approach if the archives are part of the same URL structure as the recent content? This parameter seems either poorly thought out, in need of an update, or both. Thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up Sdkb. I have a question before I can really form an opinion:

• How does it work now? It's set up to offer a link, yes. For current papers, this might be the same thing as a link to its website, though in some cases papers contract with an independent service to publish archives. For a historic paper (or a current paper that's been around for a long time), there might be multiple sites that offer (either free or paid) archives of portions of its history. For archives that are in the public domain, those might or might not be affiliated with the paper at all.

Beyond that, I think you're right -- the "free"-ness isn't really the issue. If there's an online archive that permits access for a fee, IMO it might still be worthwhile to list that, potentially with an indication that it costs money. If there's an online archive that's only accessible through an institutional affiliation (like a university), I think we probably wouldn't want to list that at all, since it would be simply inaccessible to the vast majority of our readers.

I wonder if somewhere in the history of these pages, somebody listed a reason for what they were trying to do with that parameter. But I agree, there's probably a better approach we could move to. Let's just be sure we have a clear expression of the problem before we do. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request for Description of political Parameter

Template:Infobox newspaper is a template-protected page. There has been a significant amount of discussion, and disagreement, about the "political" parameter on the template's talk page. The current description for the parameter is "political leanings of the newspaper, e.g. Centre-right". There has been no consensus to remove the parameter, but there does appear to be consensus on at least the following points:

1. The parameter is useful for newspapers in cases where newspapers formally align themselves with political parties; but in other cases, use of the parameter has often resulted in disagreement, WP:NPOV disputes, and edit wars.
2. When not formally aligned with a political party, a newspaper's "political leanings" is often a matter of subjective opinion; but infobox parameters should have objective criteria that comply with Wikipedia core content policies.
3. The parameter has been used in an inconsistent manner. For example, "some have defined it to be for the entire newspaper, others for the editorial page, and others in terms of who writes columns for the paper."
4. Political leanings of a newspaper can, and sometimes do, change over time.
5. There have been multiple instances where the parameter has been removed from newspapers not formally aligned with a political party.

For these reasons, I request that the description for the "political" parameter on the Template:Infobox newspaper page be edited. I request that the new description be, "name of political party with which newspaper is formally aligned (omit or leave blank if newspaper not formally aligned)". Squideshi (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: {{edit template-protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation or categories of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. The documentation page is not protected. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Squideshi: This has bothered me for years, so I was WP:BOLD and expanded the definition in the documentation. I think I've captured the consensus as I understand it from reading this talk page and the talk pages of several large American newspapers where problematic edits inserting this parameter have been an issue for more than a decade. What do you (and the other pagewatchers here) think? _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

School parameter display

I don't really like how |school= displays. It makes it seem as though the infobox is for the school rather than the newspaper. I'd prefer to just make it display normally near the top. Thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Actioned. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

More updates to titles

I'm proposing to update the Owner/Owners and Founder/Founders parameters to show either title, depending on the parameter used, such as the maneditor and maneditors have been updated to show either Managing editor or Managing editors (plural). Also, can we add a title/label/data parameter for "Digital editor"? This seems to be pretty common these days. Is it the same as Director of Interactive? I wasn't sure, thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Funandtrvl, changing those is a bit riskier than the update we just did for managing editors, since they've used (s) for a while, which means there's some chance of failed backwards compatibility. E.g. someone could have entered |owner= for a publication with multiple owners and been satisfied upon seeing the Owner(s) output, and we'd now be inappropriately switching that output to a singular.

On the whole, I think it would still be worth it to make the change, since incorrect plurality is pretty minor as errors go, and having the tuning ability will be useful in perpetuity going forward. I'm new enough to infoboxes, though, that I'd like to get a third opinion before moving forward with it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

thanks, is the Director of Interactive different from a Digital editor? Funandtrvl (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Funandtrvl, I'm not sure. A lot of the titles give me some pause, since I think a newspaper infobox should really only be listing the very top tier of staff, meaning probably one person who heads editorial, one who heads business, and one who owns it. Most of the rest are probably bloat. And even if they are appropriate for one or two papers, it'd be better to have a |customtitlelabel= and |customtitlename= combo available than to have them permanently as part of the template. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a custom label would be good, as I've seen "Editor emeritus", "Executive editor", etc. Funandtrvl (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Funandtrvl, implemented the custom title in sandbox; does it look good to launch? (And where do we go for another opinion about the plurality?) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: It looks good to go! You could also use "free_label" and "free_text", like at Template:Infobox school#Additional free text fields. Maybe for another opinion, post a link to this page and section at WikiProject Journalism or WikiProject Newspapers, using {{Please see}}. Thanks so much for your help! Funandtrvl (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking for some more technically-minded input, so I brought this up at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Infobox_plurality. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, I've responded there too. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Automatically creating invalid red links like "Media of the Latvia"

Please fix this automatically created red links like Media of the Latvia--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: A red link is by definition uncreated, so I'm not sure what you're asking. Is Latvia sometimes called "the Latvia"? If so, creation of a redirect to Media of Latvia might be appropriate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: strange case. "the Latvia" is incorrect. Red link proof here: [9] --Estopedist1 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Estopedist1, red links exist for all uncreated articles. If "the Latvia" is incorrect, Media of the Latvia should remain a red link. I'm not sure what you're asking us to change. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see, this template is creating inappropriate red links to e.g. Media of the Latvia at pages like The Baltic Times? That's the only page at incoming links for media of the Latvia, though, and the page itself seems to be good. This template checks if a "the [country]" page exists, and otherwise it just links to the country page if that exists. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

|onlineeditor param

The docs list |onlineeditor= as a valid parameter; however, upon trying to use this, I get a preview warning that the parameter doesn't exist. Was it removed at some point? Thanks, Remagoxer ^(talk) 12:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Remagoxer, sorry for the delayed reply. See Special:Diff/1030987438; someone recently added it to the doc without adding it to the template itself; I just removed it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove "motto"

Looking back through this TP, there was one request to add motto back in 2011 followed by another comment saying it wasn't necessary. Then there was one other request in 2013. It was added in 2014. That seems to be the extent of discussion. Since then motto/slogan have been removed from many/most other infoboxes on the basis of it being overly-promotional, I propose it be removed here also for the same reason. It was taken out of {{infobox company}} in 2016 and others after that. Most recently, from {{Infobox television channel}}, {{Infobox radio station}}, and {{Infobox television station}}. MB 01:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I might be persuaded if I looked at the rationale behind removing it at other templates, but my initial reaction is that many mottos are quite iconic, e.g. All The News That's Fit To Print or Democracy Dies in Darkness (the latter one is not a redirect), and they appear at the top of every issue of the newspaper, so I'm not sure it's terribly undue or promotional to include them in the infobox. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This infobox is used in just under 9000 articles. Of those, only about 260 use |motto=. Looking through those, you find things like "Clark and Champaign Counties' Hometown News" from Springfield News-Sun, "We tell your stories" from The Concordian (Montreal), "Your Guide to Community, Politics, Arts and Culture in North Denver" from The Denver North Star and "Galway's Only Student Newspaper" from Sin Newspaper. Certainly there are some that are iconic as you say. But I'm not convinced there are that many. Iconic ones can certainly be discussed in the prose - as is already done with the two listed above - NYT in the article and the WP slogan in its own article.

With bio infoboxes that have parameters for relatives, there is guidance to use those fields only when the relatives are notable or otherwise especially relevant. This parameter has no such guidance, and is even displayed in a very prominent location in the infobox. I'm not sure how to give such guidance here (e.g. use only if iconic). Better to just delete. MB 01:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added a caution to the documentation to include it only in certain circumstances, which is at least a start. The examples you give are certainly instances in which the motto is not due for the lead (or necessarily the article at all), but I'm not sure the existence of misuses is justification for removing it entirely, which would affect even the cases where it is warranted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 February 2022

Efb22 (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done It is not clear what you are proposing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

editorial position

I see the template includes a "political" parameter regarding a paper's news coverage. Should it not also include an "editorial" parameter regarding its editorial board slant? Case in point: WSJ. Its editorial pages clearly slant right, as can be reliably sourced, whereas its news pages do not. soibangla (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Actually the wording is political – political leanings of the newspaper, e.g. Centre-right, cited to a reliable source. For use only when a newspaper has formally aligned its news coverage with a political party or movement. Do not use the infobox for allegations of bias or descriptions of the opinion page. In other words: this is not due to omission, it is explicitly saying no. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)