This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
List of York City F.C. managers is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
@Mattythewhite: what has led you to believe that italicizing BBC Sports is the right way to go? Dawnseeker2000 00:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BBC Sport is a website, published by the British Broadcasting Corporation, meaning |website= is the most appropriate parameter to use. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you on Discord and capable of using the voice channels there? Dawnseeker2000 08:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather discuss on here, if you don't mind. Is there a particular reason you'd prefer to communicate verbally? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please meet me on Discord so we can talk rather than type. Dawnseeker2000 00:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask that you please self revert. Your explanation for reverting my change is inadequate and indicates that you do not have an understanding of what BBC Sport is or the use of publisher vs work in citations. Dawnseeker2000 06:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Having contributed to football articles for 15+ years I'm quite well acquainted with BBC Sport and hold a basic grasp of what it is, thanks. But perhaps you then please enlighten me as to the correct use of the |publisher= and |website= parameters, seeing as my explanation was so inadequate? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're asserting that instances of BBC Sport should be italicized because it is a website. If that is truly the case, our article for BBC Sport should also be italicized. Please open an RfC at Talk:BBC Sport to inquire whether {{italic title}} should be applied there. If you are successful, your revert can remain, but you'll need to self revert and apologize if the community says no. Dawnseeker2000 12:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I "asserted": what I actually stated is that the most appropriate parameter should be used, which happens to result in the included text being displayed in italics. I won't be following your suggestion and opening an RfC because my position, as I've explained, is regarding the parameter and not the italicisation of website names. If you feel the |website= parameter needs revising, Help talk:Citation Style 1 would probably be the most appropriate forum. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the RFC on your behalf. This is a first step towards gaining a community-wide understanding or agreement if BBC Sport is a work of the BBC. Dawnseeker2000 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but it still misses the crux of the matter: that being what the most apt parameter for BBC Sport is, not whether it, or any website more widely, should *necessarily* be presented in italics in general. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it the wrong way around. We choose the parameter solely for whether it produces italics or not. Dawnseeker2000 03:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is misuse, because it ignores the semantics of the different parameters. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has anybody considered using |department=? That is, for a URL beginning https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport you would have |website=BBC|department=BBC Sport (see Template:Cite news#Periodical). So in the specific case being discussed, the result would be
That |website=BBC could be altered to |website=BBC.co.uk --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both the BBC and BBC Sport are publishers (BBC Sport, as described in the initial sentence of the article, is a division of the BBC). So if you've got BBC Sport, you don't need BBC, because BBC Sport is not a "work" of BBC. Using bbc.co.uk is not the right way to go either because using top level domains are discouraged. (Help:Citation Style 1 § Work and publisher)Dawnseeker2000 09:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So to summarize what has taken place:
BBC Sport is a publisher of sports news
It is not a website, but it has one (if it were, our article would be italicized)
In the future, look no further than our article's title for information about whether a certain source is considered a publisher or work. The encyclopedia is sufficiently developed that these issues have largely been worked out. There are occasions where ambiguity exists, but the answer is straightforward for mainstream sources like BBC and BBC Sport. Dawnseeker2000 09:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, to summarize:
BBC Sport does a lot of things, one of which is to publish a website
The title is of the article covering all of these things so is not italicized
Citations from its website use the website parameter because they are from a website which shares a name with the organisation that publishes it.
"look no further than our article's title for information about whether a certain source is considered a publisher or work": that would be an extraordinarily simplistic and unnuanced approach. Perhaps, rather, we follow the established guidance relating to references, such as through WP:CS1 (which has been referred to more than once in this discussion, including by yourself) and WP:CS. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
