DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Template talk:Press

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác


Inclusion of Townhall op-ed

[edit]
There is a strong consensus to include opinion columns in Template:Press. Where to draw the line on where to include this template is clearly a grey area, and is best left to decide case-by-case —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 20:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Moved from Talk:CNN § Template:Press BRD
 – Aaron Liu (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back This revert/ES "Opinion piece not press" makes no sense. An opinion column fits under This page has been mentioned by a media organization: hand in glove. They can even be WP:RS in the right context, but that's irrelevant here on a talkpage. "This template should be used for press sources which mention a Wikipedia page." Townhall is among other things even a print magazine, "press" in the classical sense if you will. It may be a load of bollocks, but it's still press.

Opinions, other editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link is "Template:Press" and the given explanation at the linked page is "This set of pages lists any press coverage of Wikipedia that covers or discusses Wikipedia as a project" which does not fit (like a glove or otherwise). Opinions and editorials are not within the press coverage of an outlet, and in the case of outside opinion pieces like this one they haven't actually been mentioned by the media organization because the media organization disavows the piece as the work of private individuals not their own. The language used here is "The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com." In general we do not include opinion or editorial content in those sections. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Template:Press says "This template should be used for press sources which mention a Wikipedia page." Opinion is part of the content of a press source. You're reading something else, probably Wikipedia:Press coverage, which says "Press sources that reference content of a particular Wikipedia article but do not discuss the project itself should not be directly listed here. Instead note on the talk page of the referenced Wikipedia article in question the mention using the {{Press}} template,".
And we do absolutely include opinion etc in Template:Press or on the Press coverage pages when WP is the subject.
And apart from talking about WP:s coverage of news-orgs, the article says "This underlines that Wikipedia can be classified as liberal media.", that's WP as a project. Oh well, consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions are not part of the source's press content. I have not seen widespread inclusion of outside opinion pieces in those templates, if you have it would be helpful to link them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion is part of the content of a press source. Trying to separate that in this context ("This page has been mentioned by a media organization:") makes no sense to me, but people think differently. If I come across a WaPo article that mentions WP, I don't exclude it from this template if it's marked opinion, it will be read by WaPo readers anyway. We'll see if other editors have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If its in an outside opinion piece it hasn't been mentioned by the media organization. I would not include that wapo opinion piece, I think that editorials published by the outlet themselves fall into a grey area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between an outside opinion piece and an opinion piece? And no, IMO "This page has been mentioned by a media organization:" does not hint that op-eds are in any sort of grey area regarding this template. One of the points of it is that it can make Wikipedians a little aware of what readers might read about an article, and it makes no difference if it's in WaPo:s/whatever:s op-ed section or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One is the work of the media organization and the other is only hosted by them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, like "The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com." Well, still appeared on Townhall.com to the whatever of their readers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly, and comments sections also appear to the the whatever of readers... But I take it you wouldn't argue for the inclusion of a comment from an article comments section, even though its been technically published by the news org. Same goes for other social media, a Facebook post would fit your expansive definition of mentioned by a media organization (social media organization being a subset of media organization), but I assume you are not saying that we should be including social media posts in this template even if that would fulfill your goal of educating us about whats being said about us. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can include social media and in one of these templates and see what happens. I haven't and I wouldn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the article comments section comment? What distinguishes that opinion from the one in an article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're not townhall.com/columnists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These guys aren't townhall columnists, this is syndicated content distributed through Creators Syndicate... Hence "To find out more about Tim Graham and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com." and "COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Townhall says they are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Townhall say that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozellandtimgraham Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that claim anywhere in there, it appears to be a cut and pasted bio from the syndicate which doesn't mention townhall at all and is presented as the bio for both authors brent bozell and tim graham despite not mentioning Graham. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see the url + bio as a claim? I do. Is this more to your taste? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a claim, you could perhaps argue its an implication but it would be a false implication as it wouldn't be true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So [1] is lying? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say anything, how can it be lying? Its a directory which does nothing more than list the page we're already talking about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We read things differently. I see a list of (linked) names under the heading Columnists. And the article under discussion has the text "The opinions expressed by columnists..." Luckily, there are more Wikipedians than you and me around. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're syndicated columnists. You have not addressed the entry naming two people but only being about one, whats going on there? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it says Columnists, read it again. Syndicated does not appear on the page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Columnists does not contradict syndicated columnists... And the linked bio clearly says that one of the authors is a syndicated columnist "Lecturer, syndicated columnist, television commentator..." but says nothing about him working for Townhall. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You asked "Where does Townhall say that?" My answer displeased you. Noted. The closer will give our words due consideration whenever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer did not displease me, the only displeasure I have is that the entry is for Brent Bozell and Tim Graham but doesn't mention Graham. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, this statement is false. The press template is straightforwardly meant to denote media coverage of our articles regardless of whether we agree with it, like it, or think it is true. The documentation, and the years of consensus which begat said documentation, support this pretty solidly. I am not aware of any distinction, here or otherwise, where opinion pieces are "not press"[sic]. jp×g🗯️ 00:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outside opinion pieces are not media coverage any more than comments in a talk section are. We've never had a consenus to treat opinion/editorial and news pieces the same... Consensus has consistantly been the opposite, that we treat them very differently. See WP:RS for a clear example of that consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation at Template:Press/doc explicitly states that the linked source does not have to satisfy WP:RS. Twice.
And as for weird theories that an opinion piece published by a newspaper or magazine is somehow not published by that newspaper or magazine (because of standard "do not necessarily represent the views of ..." disclaimers or such), those would seems strange to media organizations worldwide and also directly contradict the intro sentence of our article opinion piece. I have reverted your deletion. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The intro sentence reads "An opinion piece is an article, usually published in a newspaper or magazine, that mainly reflects the author's opinion about a subject." so it appears to support my position, not contradict it... The mention is by the author, *not* the media org. We treat opinion pieces as self published on wikipedia, that is well established consensus. Are the authors of this opinion piece subject matter experts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What in Template:Press asks for subject matter experts? This is "this coverage exists", not human medicine. WP:NEWSOPED (off-topic for talkpages, but anyway) does not treat opinion pieces as self published. Unless they are self published. Even in article-space (and this is a talkpage), they are RS that a view exists, and are sometimes included as such. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So whats stopping us from including random facebook posts about a wikipedia article in this template? It falls within your definition of published by the media. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a discussion that hasn't come up, for some reason, afaik. You reverted me here, so if you inserted random facebook posts about a wikipedia article in this template, perhaps someone would revert you, arguing that someone posting on FB isn't a "media org", like you're arguing is the case with the Townhall opinion?
Yep, there are grey areas, but IMO random facebook posts are not part of them. But times change. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the essay WP:OTHERCONTENT applies here. That essay is an essay. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We treat opinion pieces as self published on wikipedia, that is well established consensus. - no, we don't. WP:RSOPINION explicitly distinguishes self-published opinion sources (as an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion) from other opinion sources like e.g. opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers that can be cited in various circumstances.
It would be absurd to claim that e.g. an op-ed in the New York Times is an example of self-publishing - its author doesn't get to decide whether, when and how such an article gets published, the New York Times' staff does that. And RS will regularly refer to such an op-ed as "published by the New York Times" (example), in direct contradiction to your claims here.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The author gets to decide what is in such a piece which is what matters for us. The key is what are those various circumstances... Unless the authors are subject matter experts then the use is limited to ABOUTSELF. Comments in the comments sections are also opinions published by the New York Times, I trust you are not arguing that we include those? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't, and nobody here has claimed as such, so I would describe this as a disingenuous and nonsensical strawman. jp×g🗯️ 18:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is completely false. WP:RS does not say anything remotely close to this, and as far as I know there exists zero policy or guideline, anywhere, saying that opinion pieces are "not media coverage". Please either directly quote the exact passage from the policy you're claiming says that "opinion pieces are not media coverage", or stop making false statements. jp×g🗯️ 19:25, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, I never claimed that a policy said that. Also no need to get heated, we all want the same thing here I think. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly implied something very similar in the comment that JPxG replied to, by first claiming Outside opinion pieces are not media coverage any more than comments in a talk section are and then insinuating that this was somehow supported by WP:RS. Instead of accusing him of being "mistaken", it might be more productive to either respond to his request to directly quote the exact passage from the policy you're claiming says that "opinion pieces are not media coverage", or alternatively to acknowledge that the policy doesn't support such a claim.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more helpful if you could explain whether you think that opinion pieces are always media coverage or if there are conditions under which they wouldn't be. Lets look for the common ground here, would you include an opinion piece from a personal or small group blog? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what a media outlet is? jp×g🗯️ 18:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what a media outlet is, but not what smaller definition is being used here... If for example social media, press releases, and advertising are exluded then we do not mean to include all media outlets. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that this disagreement concerns 4 other talkpages as well: [2][3][4][5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to have this type of notice of press coverage, as it gives an important external perspective to what happens here. But I wonder if we need all of them, especially when it's just 'person who doesn't like Wikipedia writes about how they don't like Wikipedia'. Maybe including only two opposing articles about any given issue from the best sources available. For instance the RSP talk page lists three sources about the downgrade of CNET and they are all just "!AI! - !CNET downgraded!". I don't think that adds anything to understanding the external perspective of what happened in that instance. As to the people who don't like Wikipedia writing about how 'Wikipedia bad!', I don't think we gain anything from listing them unless they contain something actually insightful, they tend to be very repetitive.
These currently nothing stopping such links being added, but maybe there should be somekind of inclusion criteria even if it's to avoid the possibility of appearing like a simple collection of links. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RSP one has grown over time (the CNN one popped into existence just now), and there are some repetitive stuff in it (and a lot of varied good stuff IMO), but that doesn't bother me much (and I don't think we have all of them, just the ones people have noticed and bothered to add). These templates are collapsed by default, so it's not like there is a size problem, and they're often tucked away under "other banners". The 3 CNET items are something of an indicator of how interesting the whatever was in media at the time. And RSP has gotten more media attention (and an actual WP-article) recently, I think partly because Gaza War/ADL stuff, like some other parts of WP (Zionism for example). I think it's funny that Talk:Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has one of these templates. But sure, if you remove something per "says almost exactly the same thing as the other one", it's up to someone who disagrees to oppose you.
However, per the spirit of NPOV (not wording, NPOV is about mainspace, like RS) "Maybe including only two opposing articles" is not the way to think here. I read your "opposing articles" as "critical of WP", and IMO that is not a good criteria to consider for inclusion. In a couple of weeks or months, I might find an article in WSJ mentioning RSP, critical of WP, and if you then stop me from adding it because there are already "two opposing articles" in the template, I won't like it and I'll tell Jimbo. Well, I probably won't, but still.
I take it that you think the Townhall thing fits reasonably well on the CNN talkpage, is that correct? For the interested, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_August_6#Template:Press recently happened. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that was very clear, I meant opposing as in different sources taking opposing positions on an event. Rather than opposing as in critical of Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So take as an example "Press" at Talk:Donna Strickland. Based on this thinking, how should it be trimmed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not reading all that wall of text, but opinion pieces are absolutely part of press coverage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aw cmon! Me and HEB have made about 30 comments each and you're not going to read them? What kind of website is this? Oh right, volunteers with limited time and interest for rather minor issues. Carry on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Always or are there exceptions? Presumably an opinion piece posted to my personal news blog this afternoon doesn't count as press coverage, or does it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of a press outlet in this context seems quite clear to everybody except you, so the incessant asking of "oh, well if the New York Times is media, then what about BATHROOM GRAFFITI, huh?" makes no sense to me. One is a press outlet and the other isn't. This should be fairly simple to understand. There can be (and are) many disagreements about where the boundaries can fall, but there is no contradiction offered by examples of things that are obviously not in the category. jp×g🗯️ 18:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then what is this definition that I should be following and should we perhaps not include it somewhere? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not troll. jp×g🗯️ 23:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trolling, please provide the definition. If its quite clear then it should be extremely easy to do and it seems that we have a number of editors who think that come clarification could be added to the criteria. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is because it has long been understood that the purpose of this template is not to recommend sources to be used in an article (that's what Template:Refideas is for, where concerns regarding WP:RS would be more pertinent). Rather, as also already indicated in Template:Press/doc and in the template itself, it is a per-article analogue of Wikipedia:Press coverage, which has existed since 2001. Both are about making editors aware that an article they are working on, or the entire community they are participating in, is or was the subject of media attention. This is a very standard thing to do in many organizations (see also media monitoring or press review):
  • A company might track mentions of its products in the media and notify its employees of coverage (even if it is a tabloid making up outrageous claims about the product they are working on).
  • A university might track mentions of its scholars' research in the media and notify a research team that their new paper has been mentioned in the news media (or even that it is blowing up on social media) - without fretting whether a particular piece of media coverage is "opinion", or whether it would itself meet the academic quality standards for being cited in that research team's papers.
It stands to reason that we as a community benefit from this standard practice, too. Because of this, I think that any editor who wants to change this after 24 years, e.g. by repurposing Wikipedia:Press coverage into some sort award page celebrating the highest quality journalism about Wikipedia or or into a list of reading recommendations that curates what we consider the highest quality non-opinion writing about Wikipedia, would have a lot of explaining to do. (I am aware that there exist some editors who see no value at all in compiling press coverage - however delineated -, but this recent snow close indicates that they are an extreme minority.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really do anything to help us define what counts as media attention and what doesn't... From this definition social media and press releases would be included but we don't seem to include social media and press releases. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the the Townhall article under discussion [6] social media or a press release? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that nobody has actually offered a definition of media organization so we can't evaluate whether Townhall.com meets that definition until we have one... And Townhall has historically had many of the features of a social media site, if it isn't now it once was so its relevant (at one point it was a forum with a associated blogs, notice this bit from the linked wikipedia article "the ability for any user to set up a blog on the Townhall.com network" ). So we're currently attempting to come up with a definition of media organization which works in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a separate question though. The main purpose of my comment was to further dispel claims that Template:Press or Wikipedia:Press coverage must not mention opinion pieces, or should be required to enforce WP:RS. (To drive that point home with another example: Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2005#November included An opinion piece written to document how an anonymous Wikipedia contributor accused Seigenthaler of possibly killing John and/or Robert F. Kennedy,..., probably one of the most important and influential press coverage in the history of Wikipedia, which lead to the creation of the BLP policy. A "we mustn't bring opinion pieces to the attention of editors" rule would clearly have been detrimental there.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has argued that we "must not mention opinion pieces, or should be required to enforce WP:RS" if you look at my arguments you will see that I consider many opinion pieces (but not this one) to fall into a grey area... Specifically opinion/editorial pieces written by the staff of the outlet should be fine, its the letters to the editor sort of thing that pushes it IMO. In your example the author of the opinion piece, John Seigenthaler, is a subject matter expert and is talking about their own experience... That doesn't seem to be analogous. PS it isn't actually included in this template at Talk:John Seigenthaler... If this was meant to demonstrate how we use this template it does not do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

For the interested

[edit]

I got curious what we put in this template, and thanks to @Trappist the monk, here's a search-string to play with:

Enjoy! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, in the context of the above I see two other uses of townhall.com, this breaking news piece used at President of the Confederate States of America [7] and this breaking news piece [8] used at Lisa Brown (Washington politician). I can find no use of their opinion pieces, syndicated, blog, or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 warning

[edit]

The template generates the CS1 warning "CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)" if several authors are specified:

As |author[2]= etc are used for multiple press mentions, what can be done to avoid this warning, or is it not worth fixing? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I add them all in the |author= etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the only possible option with the template as it stands now – see my example – but that raises a warning, and that's what my query is about. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek Sorry. Afaict by [9][10], it doesn't have to generate a warning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your 2nd example, where the 2 contributors are written with commas, does generate the warning. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then the problem is that I don't know where to see the CS1 warning, I was looking for something like at Talk:Vassy (singer), I guess that's a different beast. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]