- "
|publisher=Name of publisher/copyright owner (such as a website owner) if any. If different than|work=, it must be linked either to a Wookieepedia, a Wikipedia article, or if not available, to be linked to the publisher's website home page, if it is still live." - ―{{Cite_web}} documentation
When I started editing, I had a hard time understanding how to use properly the "Publisher" parameter on {{Cite_web}}. Even during the backup project, I was still struggling with it, and kind of panicked mid project when I realized I was mixing it with the "work" parameter half of the time (like a lot of editors, mind you ^^). Since then, we have rewritten the template and created a clearer documentation (anything more than "publisher: Publisher, if any." was an easy improvement…). However, has I often stop by various articles to correct their uses of the template, I can't help to have the recurring thought that, much like we did with the accessdate parameter, we should also remove altogether the publisher parameter.
A bit of context: the parameter is was introduced in 2007 in a simplified version of the (quite complex) Wikipedia's Template:Cite web. It has since known various improvement, with the most modern version being the one pushed by the 2021 Forum:SH:Cite web template update. It's inclusion is meant to mimic academic citation styles. There's various reasons to include it in a citation, going from accurate media description (derivative from book citation) to critical media analysis (basically, who publish what and how that may affect the media itself).
To make sure we all understand, here some example of combination of work and publisher:
- work=io9 & publisher=G/O Media
- work=Variety & publisher=Penske Media Corporation
- work=The Hollywood Reporter & publisher=Eldridge Industries
- work=Vanity Fair & publisher=Condé Nast
But also, if we were to use Cite_web to cite websites we have specific templates for:
- work=StarWars.com & publisher=Lucasfilm
- work=Wookieepedia & publisher=Fandom
So why do I think we should get rid of it? Between the constant missuses, may it be by experienced or new editors, especially when erroneous formatting disseminated all over get copied, or simply non-used as it is informally regarded as unnecessary unless for passing status review (even I don't bother with it generally, and I think I only spot Vader327 adding them every time), I have come to consider it an unnecessary burden. For new users, it's a concept that can be hard to grasp (what a legal/copyright owner? Where do I find this kind of information?) and again lead to confusion between work and publisher, and for veteran users, it can be an hassle to correctly track the information and add to template when some OOU articles have a dozen to a hundred Cite_web (I still have nightmare of formatting and archiving all the Cite_web on movies articles). While we tend to also try to mimic academic work on numerous thing, our general approach to web citation, except for this particular template, doesn't support the use of this parameter, as we don't have specific needs in that regards, whereas dating and authorship are more important for us.
I wanted to open the discussion on this before moving to a quick CT, which if passed, would necessitate a "simple" botrun, removing all uses of the parameter. Note that in effect, if an instance of Cite_web only included publisher and not work, that would not be a problem, since work as been automated to be included when the parameter isn't manually introduced by an user (don't take this as an excuse to not do it, or I'll haunt your sleep), so except for the bot operator, no additional work will be necessary to implement this change. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 20:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Update: The CT is open for voting. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 17:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
- Completely agree with removing it, extremely counterintuitive that a starwars.com's article "publisher" isn't starwars.com. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 21:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC) - "It's confusing and often misused" are red herrings: these problems are solved by giving it a better name and usage instructions, both fairly simple clerical fixes. The relevant question is whether the information in the field adds any value. I don't really see any offhand, but very little of my editing is on citations, so I leave it to those with more experience there to answer that. Asithol (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- This sounds good to me. Rsand 30 (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- I was initially against this as I crave completion. BUT I also crave consistency, so I'd rather cite web match our other templates, so I'm in support of this. NBDani
(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 18:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC) - I agree that better instructions and/or examples might be needed in the template page to prevent the most common misuses; however, I'm leaning in favor of keeping the "publisher" parameter. Not only because I personally like to keep things close to academic style, but I also find having two parameters beneficial in cases like
The Mandalorian, published by Writers Guild of America West on the Writers Guild of America's Directory (backup link archived on December 7, 2022) 
Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Better instructions and examples are good, but the number one fix (if the parameter is retained) is to give it a better name. ThrawnChiss points out how misleading publisher is for it: intuitively, StarWars.com seems like the publisher of articles posted on that site. But if the parameter were named, say, publishing_company, that temptation goes away: editors will not naturally think of StarWars.com as a company. Likewise, most editors may not know off the tops of their heads that Condé Nast is the publisher of Vanity Fair magazine, but it will at least give them pause to think, "wait, Vanity Fair is a magazine name, but is it also the company name?" Once you make the wrong answer less attractive, people will be more likely to seek the right answer. (publishing_company is probably not the ideal name either, but it's certainly an improvement.) Asithol (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't oppose to changing the parameter's name to something better, really. And about better instructions, I recall that during my early days on Wook, someone told me that the easiest way to determine a webpage's "publisher" is to scroll down to the very bottom of the page, which I found very useful. This recommendation, which also works for all six examples above, can perhaps be implemented in the template documentation. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot to answer to this sooner. Sure, improved instruction could improve somewhat the situation, but that doesn't remove my main two issues: utility and consistency. We have no use for that information, and only this template, that we use when a specialized template isn't available features it. Academic style is good, but it exist for a reason, and if that reason don't serve a clear purpose, then it must evolve: it's not a monolith. In the example you gave, Anil, the title should be "The Mandalorian - WGA Directory", because that the exact name of that page. The website itself, (the "Work", https://www.wga.org) is explicitly called "Writers Guild of America West", so here, it's a case of redundancy, the work and the published operates under the same name. I'm not sure why ThrawnChiss7 used the example of SW.com above, because as I said earlier, our specialized templates, like SW and SWArchive in this case, don't feature any information on it's publisher. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 16:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't oppose to changing the parameter's name to something better, really. And about better instructions, I recall that during my early days on Wook, someone told me that the easiest way to determine a webpage's "publisher" is to scroll down to the very bottom of the page, which I found very useful. This recommendation, which also works for all six examples above, can perhaps be implemented in the template documentation.
- Better instructions and examples are good, but the number one fix (if the parameter is retained) is to give it a better name. ThrawnChiss points out how misleading publisher is for it: intuitively, StarWars.com seems like the publisher of articles posted on that site. But if the parameter were named, say, publishing_company, that temptation goes away: editors will not naturally think of StarWars.com as a company. Likewise, most editors may not know off the tops of their heads that Condé Nast is the publisher of Vanity Fair magazine, but it will at least give them pause to think, "wait, Vanity Fair is a magazine name, but is it also the company name?" Once you make the wrong answer less attractive, people will be more likely to seek the right answer. (publishing_company is probably not the ideal name either, but it's certainly an improvement.) Asithol (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of getting rid of it. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 05:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
