Forum:CT:Publisher parameter in Cite web

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support proposal. Imperators II^(Talk) 06:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Quite simply, this vote is there to establish through consensus if we would prefer to have the publisher parameter within the {{Cite_web}} template to be removed or kept, as discussed in a preliminary SH. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 17:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove "publisher"

1. As an editor who handle web content on a daily basis, I can't find a good reason to keep it: it serve no real useful purpose, it's inconsistent with any other internet citation template, can even be redundant when an entity that publish a website use it's own name for said website, and is generally completely left out by editors unless on articles passing status review. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 17:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Imperators II^(Talk) 17:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Anything to make the monster that is Cite_web a little more palatable. UberSoldat93 (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
4. consistency. NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 22:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
5. 110% per UberSoldat93. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 23:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
6. Loqiical (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
7. Definitely an annoying step in the process, and really, how does it actually benefit our readers to know which companies own which magazines? Commander Code-8 ^{Hello There!} 01:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
8. Lewisr (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
9. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 05:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
10. When retiring the publisher field, I suggest looking into usages of Cite_web that include it but not the work field and check whether the content of the publisher field should simply be interchanged with the work field (e.g. someone who was confused by the naming of the parameters erroneously putting the name of the website's body of work in the publisher field). OOM 224 (he/him) 19:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
11. —spookywilloww^talk 19:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
12. Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 20:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
13. Rakhsh (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
14. Rsand 30 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
15. LucaRoR ^(Talk) 13:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
16. Supreme Emperor ^Holocomm 07:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep "publisher"

1. I don't feel strongly about it, but I believe having both "work" and "publisher" proves helpful in some cases and it is an optional parameter anyway. Not really a big deal, but it also helps to keep the citation format close to the academic style. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
   • Honestly, it's not treated as optional when it comes to status articles, as Nano has pointed out. UberSoldat93 (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
2. I do find it a bit repetitive, but the reason brought up by Anil is one I'm inclined to agree with. Bonzane10 (holonet) 19:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Per above Editoronthewiki (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Discuss