Template talk:Subscription required

{{

{{

reg}} uses the established {{fix}} as a base template: I'd prefer that this template used a similar form of inheritance if possible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Isn't {{

WP:EL guideline. ({{Registration required}} has the same situation, with the first two uses being to stories from Financial Times and Rolling Stone

.)

As for this, {{

Mrwojo (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think it's ideal, but I would rather that all such templates fell under some specific category and were thus subclassed to a relevant meta-template. If an alternative were available which better suited then both templates could be migrated onto it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable for us to create a meta-template to help organize these templates since I can't think of any existing categories or meta-templates that unambiguously address this. The closest might be

Mrwojo (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This template's text should read (Subscription required.) instead of "(subscription required)" since it is used after citations, which end with "." I fixed it. A conforming edit has been made to {{Registration required}}. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This grammar fix at {{registration required}} was reverted without comment (which was rude) as part of the next revision. The tempalte doc illustrations, more adequate here than for registration, show styling as a grammatical sentence does not fit.

Indeed, this template and {{registration required}} are frequently used at the end of bulleted list entries that are not closed with any punctuation, nor internally punctuated. (I have used only this one, usually in the External links sections of articles. Another bulleted list context is under "Citations" or "Books" or "Websites" in the References section.)

The documentation for both templates, and

dead

}} generates.)

--P64 (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion for superscripting this tag. --

rS 15:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Proper use of this and {{Registration required}} with citation templates based on Template:Citation/core (i.e., almost all of them) is |postscript=. (subscription required)=

It should not be placed between the template and the </ref> for this tool or that won't parse it as being part of the citation data (if you want tech details, you'd have to ask the maintainers of {{Citation/core}}). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this need to be parsed in the citation data? The postscript does not appear in the metadata. If this need to be integrated, then we should add it to core. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, this should not be stuffed inside a citation template, else the markup will be included:

{{Source}} is deprecated. Please use a more specific template. See the documentation for a list of suggested templates.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about the {{subscription required}} tag. An editor at DYK seems to feel that the tag is required on all sources that are avaiable at online databases that require subscription (e.g. Jstor and Springer) whether or not the sources are also available as paper sources. I don't think this is reasonable - and believe that per

I think it should apply only to the |url= parameter. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My adding a link to

Such links are useful for most of the other templates in WP:INLINE because they are maintenance templates. They're suggesting the user do something to improve the page, and a link is needed to provide guidance on how to do that. This template is different, because subscription sources are acceptable, so there's no need for the user to do anything. It's simply a courtesy notice to the user that they likely won't be able to access the link if they click on it. And I think it's perfectly natural to think that a link named "subscription required" would give you information about the subscription that is required. If we can't provide that information, then it shouldn't be a link. Toohool (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the via parameter is perfectly acceptable in terms of tracking links to this template related to a particular source. however, I don't think we need to make it visible. I can simply hover over the link to see if the source is HighBeam or ProQuest or whatever. it just feels like unnecessary advertising. from the thread on Plastikspork's talk page, it appears this was added as some sort of a compromise after the TfD of template:HighBeam. I originally supported the addition of a second parameter, but on second thought I think it is unnecessary. however, I would still support it for tracking purposes, or as a way to add a class to this template, which would allow me to personally hide it or modify it for particular subscription services (e.g., color subscription required in another color if it is one to which I have personally subscribed, much the same way that I have changed other coloring in my own vector.css page). Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The advert aspect is my objection. I have less objection to the tracking notion. I do think some tracking useful; I added a tracking cat, here. These were supposed to be "free" accounts, but if the norm is to advertise their use, then they weren't free, were they? I would agree to a resurrection of {{HighBeam}} if it were in conjunction with not displaying the shout-out of "HighBeam" via (;) this template. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The via param is useful for many other archives besides HighBeam, such as ProQuest, NewsBank, etc., so I don't think the "quid pro quo" issue that you're raising should be a factor here. It seems to me that this is simply a matter of saying where you got it. Different archives could have slightly different versions of an article, so it's useful for verifiability purposes to know which version was used. It's also helpful to readers to figure out whether they'll be able to access the link. If I see a New York Times story with (subscription required), I might assume that I need a New York Times subscription, but if I see  – via NewsBank (subscription required) , then I know I need a NewsBank subscription. It's true you can meet both these needs by hovering over the link, but I think being explicit in references is generally a good idea. By the same argument, we could get rid of the newspaper param in {{cite news}}, because you can just hover over the link. Toohool (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us have used essentially the following, which do not activate the title as a linkname; commonly, the one or two links displayed here are the first one(s) in the Refs or Extlinks entry that is illustrated.

• ... (content suppressed but no link suppressed). U of Pennsylvania Press. Reprint retrieved 2012-09-22 via
  Questia
  (subscription required).
• ... (content suppressed but no link suppressed). U of Pennsylvania Press. Reprint retrieved 2012-09-22 (subscription required).

These are my adaptations of usage by other editors. "(subscription required)", either freehand or generated by template, is included only where applicable. Inclusion and location of the dot(.) may vary.

Offhand I doubt that I have used the former myself. The latter does not "shout out" the service name. Both variants are transparent to me, as the "via" information is attached to retrieval. The approved template is transparent to me only because it does "shout out" the service name; as it attaches the information to the original publisher, it seems to identify the service as a secondary publisher. We credit the service purposefully, it seems to me, just as traditional citations credit the publishers of paper sources that are "reprints" (secondary publishers) but do not credit the printers of paper sources.

(From reading here today, I understand that we freeform writers undermine Wikipedia tracking usage of such services as Questia.)

--P64 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a parameter is required for the common case where an abstract (often itself fairly useful) is available, but the full text is only available on payment? Maybe difficult to do in a non-wordy way? Pol098 (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it does seem like that would be too wordy. if the information being cited required subscription, then use this template. if you can get the information being cited from a free abstract, then no need for this template (e.g., where it's just verification that the article exists, and has the specified authors, title, etc.). Frietjes (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, precision must get wordy. There are many variants and some are complex.

Before spending hours in Template(talk) and Wikipedia(talk) space, I made a change (line 67 only) in one reference (ref#3) that needed attention otherwise. Re the matter at hand, both Before and After now seem regrettably wordy to me.

P.S. I don't consider that one worth changing alone. For one, section 9 where that source needs to be used more substantially remains essentially unreferenced; for two, it's a Talk page subject. --P64 (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this, I've looked again at P64's line 67 only edit, using {{link note |note=subscription or purchase required; title and abstract free of charge}}. This makes good sense (I cite it here explicitly in case anyone wants to copy it). It could be trimmed with little loss of meaning to something like {{link note|note=Web abstract free, article on subscription}}, still a bit wordy. Pol098 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i was looking for a way to note that a source allowed access to a limited number of articles. this seemed important, especially where one WP article is referencing multiple articles from a source that does that. i don't know if this is the best solution, but i used the "link note" used by P64 to do so. i did it on this page (i don't know how to make a 'jump' like P64 did above): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Bentley i'm surprised this hasn't been brought up before. does anyone think this might be the best way to do this? oh, this is what i used: (~3 free articles allowed before subscription required) and then i put in or changed the access date parameter within the ref.Colbey84 (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you use this template for example on a link to the NYT? NYT allows some number of free accesses per month, after which they require a subscription. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I see, editors leave off the subscription tag when some articles are available for free each month. Kaltenmeyer (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When editing Felix Sunzu today, I found that this reference requires a subscription, but the Wayback Machine's archived page is complete. I removed the subscription required template, as this enables a user to read the full article. Should the template still be included? - Paul2520 (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This will be matter of opinion but here is mine. If the source URL is dead and the web archive is working and not subscription, it shouldn't be marked subscription. If the source URL is live and subscription, it should be marked subscription, regardless of the web archive status. The idea is the subscription status should be for the source URL when that information is available. If the source URL is dead we no longer know its subscription status, and can fall back on the archive URL as a proxy source of information the last time we knew anything about it (when it was archived). -- GreenC 21:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the template is really to indicate to the user whether or not the source will be readable to them, not an indication of it's publication status. It should always refer to whether the direct link requires a subscription. A sentient pickle (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a very large number of academic papers are available only to paid subscribers, that many Wikipedia citations do not indicate this, and that readers may assume by default that a scientific paper cited is paywalled if nothing is mentioned, maybe there is a requirement for a "Public access" template and a parameter in {{Cite journal}} (or a message triggered by the existing "subscription=" if "no")? (Maybe something like this exists, but I haven't found it, and would have expected to have found it mentioned in the documentation for this template.) There would seem to be 3 main categories of access: public, on free-of-charge registration, and paid. Maybe we should also even distinguish "pay-per-view" and strict "paid subscriber-only" access? At present a reference with "subscription=yes" displays "(subscription required (help))", while "subscription=no" generates an error message (at the time of writing). At the very least, as a temporary measure "subscription=no" should not generate an error message.^[1]

While technically "Cite journal" is a separate template, it would make sense to have a common approach. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]