Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Disclosing a defunct URL

The kotaku.com.au domain (which previously belonged to, obviously, Kotaku) was recently purchased by an AI-content farm called the Kotaku Times. I think there should be some sort of adjustment to the wording of the Kotaku entry to reflect this domain effectively being defunct, given its usage across several articles. But I'm not sure how one would go about that or if it's something that RSP should even disclose. Any ideas? λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised that I can't find any previous examples of usurped domains... Aaron Liu (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:USURPREQ might be of interest. Links can switched to an archive and the original hidden. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Help requested for installing shortcut

So I just added a shortcut for the new Sports Illustrated entry, but I am unable to figure out how to create a redirect so it points to the proper spot on this main RSP page. Ever since the coding for the source chart was split to a separate page, I am unable to make sense of how to create a redirect/anchor. Any assistance would be much appreciated. Left guide (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I suggest copying one of the already existing redirects from that table, such as WP:SPECTATOR. Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: thanks, done. Left guide (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Christian Broadcasting Network

Given that it's been discussed in numerous past RSN discussions, should it be added here?

• 2011 discussion
• Brief 2011 discussion
• 2012 discussion
• 2021 discussion
• 2025 discussion
• There's a few other threads that briefly mention it.

137a (talk • edits) 22:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

As long as it satisfies the inclusion criteria as mentioned in the Inclusion criteria section.
(yes.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Morning Star

The text for MS says "The Morning Star is a British tabloid with a low circulation and readership that the New Statesman has described as "Britain's last communist newspaper". Firstly, given the 2024 discussion, I assume the term "tabloid" here refers to the newspaper size rather than quality, in which case it is irrelevant to an assessment of its reliability. Secondly. the phrase "Britain's last communist newspaper" comes from a headline, which is not a reliable source. Hence, I suggest we remove these parts of the first sentence from MS' summary. Burrobert (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Replaced with its self-description. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Unrelated discussion (Financial Times)

Discussion 8 in the FT's entry is about CoinDesk, not the FT. The only reference to the Financial Times (from what I can see) in that discussion is in a comment by Smallbones. The link ought to be removed. Xacaranda (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Everyone can edit Wikipedia, especially if it's probably uncontroversial! Aaron Liu (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Slate?

This source was brought up a few years ago but the discussion quickly devolved into something unrelated. I was surprised that it wasn't on the list, since it's a pretty common media site. My inclination is that it's factual but biased, so I'm not sure where that puts it. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This page lists the sources that have been repeatedly discussed on WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, it's not a list of all sources. If Slate meets the inclusion criteria, see WP:RSPCRITERIA, you could summarise the past discussions and add it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

This discussion at RSN from December last year seems to broadly support Slate's reliability. There are a handful of other discussions on specific Slate claims or articles, but that seems to be the only one on Slate in general, which suggests to me that we don't need to include it on RSP. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public Why do you feel only one discussion suggests it doesn't need to be added to RSP? It looked like a healthy discussion to me, while it lasted. There seems to be consensus, although it doesn't look like a clear "green" for Slate... maybe pale green. Considering there is some hesitancy to label it as unilaterally reliable, it stands to reason that some people might be looking for guidance about it (such as myself) and having it listed would be helpful. I'm especially interested because I saw it become increasingly biased over the past 20 years or so. This supports the idea that it's not necessarily reliable and perhaps should be used with caution. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Because by definition something which has been discussed only once is not a perennial question. There are countless sources which people might reasonably be looking for guidance about; we cannot and should not list all of them on this page. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"Not supported by source"

I thought I came across a notation some time ago, similar to , but that was a way of noting the source was legitimate but did not contain content that supported the statement it was associated with. I've search for it since and can't find anything. Does this exist? If so, how is it entered? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

You're possibly thinking of {{failed verification}}. I find {{inline cleanup tags}} useful when I forget the exact name of something like this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested YES! That's it! Thank you! Ghost writer's cat (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Encyclopedia.com

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Encyclopedia.com

I was surprised to see that we don't have a section about Encyclopedia.com in the Perennial sources, and I think we should add one. The domain is already used in over 1,000 articles (at least 850 with citation templates, and 350 without). For another view, see this link search, which reveals at least 15,000 links in all namespaces.

There are a number of archived discussions about the topic, which I have collected in this subpage to make it easier to browse them all in one place. I added a summary at the top highlighting the main themes, without attempting any assessment of it. I would like to see us discuss the reliability of Encyclopedia.com in this section and come up with some consensus on what to say about it in the Perennial table. Given its widespread use and the likelihood of continued use, I think it would be advisable to provide some guidance to users, as saying nothing is no longer an option. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I think your summary is good. It would an "additional considerations apply" since we'd need to evaluate it case-by-case. We could copy "Determine the original source of what is being cited to establish reliability. When possible, cite the original source in preference to the repository." from the academic repositories entry. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

RS vs post-factual sourcing

NOTIFICATION:

As Trump and MAGA succeed in bullying RS into silence and history/documents/databases/government records start to disappear, the fringe right-wing media's influence will become more dominant and the voice of RS will fade. It will also be harder to source good content. I don't know the exact statistics, but it appears that right-wing media already dwarf mainstream media 10 to 1, and, in the United States, Trump will go after all opposing voices and try to eliminate them.

This topic is now open for discussion at:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RS vs post-factual sourcing

Do not continue it here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line against having every single RSN discussion having a notification on a talk page for discussing the RSP list itself? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Editors who would find this a subject of interest tend to congregate here, so that's all. AGF. This topic is not for discussion here, so don't continue to comment. Let those who are interested go there or not. End of story. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Editors who find such things of interest would either subscribe to WP:Cent, WP:VPR/WP:VPI, or WP:RSN. This talk page is of interest to maintaining the RSP list only. It is for discussing how to compile existing consensuses, not originating such consensuses as found at RSN. The only way editors here may congregate here is if they would congregate to any RSN discussion. (and I don't think you're acting in bad faith here, you're clearly wanting the best for the world.) Please just don't put such stuff here in the future. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

User script to export RSP table as JSON

I put together a user script (see User:SuperHamster/RSP-to-JSON) that lets you export the RSP table as JSON. This may be helpful for anyone building tools that utilize RSP data, among other things. You can see a sample of an export here (this sample lacks discussion links, but you can also export with discussion links if you desire).

There were quite a number of variations and edge cases in the table to account for, so if you notice anything wrong with the output, please let me know!

Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Color "additional considerations apply" as purple and "no consensus" as yellow at RSP

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Color "additional considerations apply" as purple and "no consensus" as yellow at RSP. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)