Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

It's RFC time

For some time now, I think it's been years, I and others have raised various complaints about RSP, such as:

  • The entire list is too long, making it unmanageable and difficult to use
  • It includes sources about which there is absolutely no genuine dispute as to reliability, such as mainstream media (e.g. BBC)
  • It includes sources where there have only been one or two discussions
  • It includes sources where there haven't been any discussions in a very long time, like 5+ or 10+ years
  • It includes sources where the discussions have only been attended by a few people, like less than 5
  • It includes sources where the only discussions have been discussions that were only started for the purpose of listing a source at RSP, not because there is actually any perennial dispute about the reliability of the source (e.g., The Onion)

This is supposed to be a list of perennially-discussed sources, but it instead has morphed into a list of "approved and unapproved sources". I have seen a number of editors try to prune the list, and been reverted each time. Recent examples on this page right now: #Entries that might be trimmed, #List purge.

I find this to be an intolerable state. We need to tighten up the inclusion criteria for RSP, we need to prune the list of RSP, we need to stop adding sources to RSP that aren't actually in dispute. Because some editors clearly disagree with this (as judged by their reverts of pruning efforts), I guess we will need to have an RFC. So let's have an WP:RFCBEFORE.

I think the "RFC question," or proposal, should be to change WP:RSPCRITERIA, which currently requires the following:

  1. two or more discussions
  2. each discussion must be "significant"
    • "significant" means two editors where the source's name is in the section heading, or three editors otherwise, each of whom must make at least one comment on the source's reliability
  3. Or alternatively, at least one RFC at RSN

I think we should change that criteria to be something more like this:

  1. at least three discussions
  2. within the last 10 years (or 5 years)
  3. each discussion must have at least 5 editors commenting on the source's reliability

Additionally, we should have a rule that there can be no RSN RFC unless there have been at least 3 past discussions with no consensus, or a prior RFC (to see if consensus has changed), and that prior RFC had to have been at least 3-5 years ago (or there has been some event that justifies revisiting the issue, e.g. a major scandal at the source).

The idea is to beef up "significance" by requiring 5 editors to participate; to ensure "perennial" by requiring 3 discussions and requiring the dispute to not be stale (because 10 years is a long time and things change... if no one has brought it up in 10 years, it's not perennial anymore, even if it once was). I think we should cut down on the RFCs, especially RFCs that are designed to add/remove an entry to RSP, rather than designed to resolve an actual perennial dispute over the source. The idea is to stop the notion of: just because two or three people disagree about a source once or twice, doesn't mean we add it to RSP. The idea is to end up with a much shorter WP:RSP that really only lists perennial discussions, and does not waste time listing sources that are obviously reliable (BBC) or obviously unreliable (The Onion).

Brainstorming/ranting here out loud, but I'm pretty keen on having an RFC about making RSP more usable and breaking the logjam. Any feedback on this proposed criteria, on what the RFC question should be, on what the proposed changes to RSPCRITERIA should be? Levivich (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like a change in the right direction, though I'd need to think through the details of the proposal. Alaexis¿question? 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I would like to bring into consideration for contrast the Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide, which is a project by @Rosguill: that backlinks every source discussed by 2+ editors on RSN (which I think is useful to do) and then makes their own 3-tier judgement on the outcome of that discussion. That page's categorization has been incorporated uncritically into editors' bot scripts and occasionally referenced in on-wiki discussion, despite single-editor oversight. (Now, as is clear from the essay's Talk page, this state was never that editor's intention.) I am hoping to help make that essay more usable going forward. In the meantime, it should serve a very clear and distinct purpose from a more definitive, consensus-driven, RSP.
RSP meanwhile, should be thorough enough that it is a useful primary reference for quick manual lookup, bot scripts, and at least a small amount of conflict mitigation (or at least more mitigation than causation). The notion of "obviously reliable" versus "obviously unreliable" is not always obvious, or at least not for the 2nd and 3rd uses I listed. The Onion and BBC will likely still be listed because the Beeb is stratified in various categories of various reliability standards, while Rottentomatoes' "top critic" The AV Club used to be part of The Onion publication and is still owned by them, so also may be worth noting as a separate category. (Of course it may be just obvious that AV Club is RS and BBC Bitesize (or whatever else the youth section used to be called) is yellow at best). That nobody finds the need to question/update the ratings here still is that the ratings are still noncontroversial as the content standards have changed which lends to the notion that they're "obvious" -- but I'd still think that my 2nd and 3rd use cases are important enough to warrant their listing.) SamuelRiv (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your view. I wonder how widely it's held, because it's the opposite of my view, and I think both views are held by some number of editors, but I'm not sure which is consensus, and I think it would be helpful to find out. What you're describing is what I'd call a "source list" or "source index": a list of sources and whether they're reliable, useful for manual lookup, bots, scripts, and as a reference for conflict resolution. This is not the same thing as a list of perennial sources, which is, to quote the first sentence of WP:RSP: "sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed".
A source list and a perennial list have two very different purposes. The source list is to tell people about the reliability of sources. This is helpful for anyone (human or computer) who wants to find out the reliability of source--they can look it up on the list. A perennial list isn't for that purpose; rather, it tells people about whether sources have been discussed frequently. The point of the perennial list like RSP isn't to tell people which sources are reliable and which aren't, it's to reduce the number of unnecessary new threads at WP:RSN. So before somebody starts a discussion at RSN, they check RSP to make sure that source hasn't already been discussed frequently before. If it has, they can reference those discussions (and then decide if a new one is worth starting); if it hasn't, then they start the discussion.
Maybe instead of an RFC about changing RSPCRITERIA, the RFC should be about whether RSP should be a source list or a perennial list (or if it should be both, or we should have two lists). Because if it's going to be a source list instead of a perennial list, then we probably should move the page to WP:Source list or WP:Source index, and rewrite it accordingly (which would, anyway, require changing RSPCRITERIA). Levivich (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Personally I think the problem is not too many items on the list but that we should categorize the list better and provide the option for more, not less detail, which might mean having more detailed separate subpages about each source and the discussions or broken up in some different way. Maybe even shorter overview on the main page and an expando-collapsed template subpage. I also think one of the gaps is that there are not particularly rigorous criteria about what are acceptable arguments in RSN discussions. For example, we specifically mark self-published fact-check sites like Ad Fontes, MBFC etc as unreliable, but people still use them in arguments because there isn't a formally rigorous bar on doing so. Andre🚐 21:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Could you elaborate on the rationale for the recency requirement? I would anticipate that having something added here would cut down on future discussions of it, because it provides a "definitive" answer one way or the other, meaning entries would be removed due to "timing out" rather than an actual consensus change. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    At some point, the determination becomes outdated. If we want to know if a source is reliable, it doesn't really matter what people thought about it 15 or 20 years ago. If nobody has sought to revisit the issue in that much time, it's not perennial. Levivich (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I fail to see how the list is "too long", let alone "unmanageable". You can just use Ctrl+F or your phone browser's search function to easily find sources on the list. Furthermore, regarding the BBC News example: the reliability of its Arab version (now discontinued) was questioned not too long ago, and there's cases like that for many sources, even ones that have been considered to be reliable for a long time. I can also promise you that as soon as you remove sources like that from the list, this is going to be used as a bad faith attack vector by people who want to remove well-sources content from Wikipedia. Cortador (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:CHOKING has a little on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Fwiw, the Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Page_size discussion is listed at WP:CR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I do think a table to lay out the clear problematic sources like Fox News, Breitbart, Forbes contributors, etc, where an explanation of why they are yellow or red, is necessary, but I would suggest that for those sources that are typically green or have little doubt to other states (like BBC, NYTimes, etc) as to list them out with links to relevant discussions as we have done at WP:VG/S at the end of the page. We should try to document and index those discussions, but inclusion in the table is too much. emphasis for t — Masem (t) 15:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Whatever happens there needs to be a list of prior discussions on RSN, so that the same discussions aren't just repeated endlessly. This is at odds with making a comprehensive list where sources are added so they can be formatted green by scripts. As to old discussion maybe after a defined time maybe they could be moved to an archive list. I think the question of what should this list be is the first one to answer. If it should be a list of prior discussions the criteria should likely be tightened up, if it should be comprehensive then criteria should be quite different and a new listing of prior RSN discussions needs to be made. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
At this point I think the contention between having a general list and a summary of past RSN discussions can only be solved by splitting. That way the two purposes want be at odds with each other. This page could be marked as historical a new "Sources list" could be created listing all sources and something else created to only list past discussions. The past discussions list could then have it's inclusion criteria tightened. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I am basically with Andrevan, in that I think the issue is not the length but the lack of organization. If anything I would like to add as many sources as possible to the list. Loki (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Concur. Maybe have a general source list and a subset of those listed as "perennial"? But at that point the second page seems sorta redundant. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm strenuously opposed to mass-removing entries from RSP, or to any significant changes to how sources are added to it. Not everyone has heard of eg. The Onion; and a lack of recent discussions about a source is often a sign that it is working. Documenting even a loose or limited consensus about a source is, to me, more valuable than having nothing here about that source or forcing editors to waste time digging up previous discussions themselves. I also don't see any purpose to insisting on a specific number of discussions - sometimes it is obvious that a source could be / will be a problem, especially if its reliability differs from what you'd think just by glancing at it; there is no disadvantage to just labeling it immediately. We live in an age of widespread misinformation, including many new websites specifically dedicated to misinformation and many previously-reliable sources that have suddenly declined sharply in reliability; being able to identify those sources rapidly and indicate them in a central place like RSP is valuable, whereas insisting that they be discussed X times before we can indicate that they're unreliable here would only harm our ability to deal with them.
But I do think that it might be worth emphasizing that entries here are, in most cases, just broad temperature-checks; they're not intended to be the final be-all and end-all, they're intended to save time by reducing redundant discussions and by giving people an easy starting point when considering or discussing a source. Improving its organization might also be a good idea, although if possible having everything on one page so it can be easily searched is valuable - possibly we could have one page with every entry and move the detailed text to subpages (or just move it to subpages in cases where a conclusion is obviously straightforward.)
Overall it's important to recognize that RSP is working - our sourcing has improved dramatically since we started using it. We have gotten lots of coverage describing Wikipedia as one of the few sites on the internet that has successfully handled the modern age of disinformation: [1][2][3] I don't think there's any real justification for sweeping changes. --Aquillion (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC question

Thank you to everyone for taking the time to share their thoughts. I think it's pretty clear that my proposing the tighter criteria I suggested above is not the way to proceed. I'm thinking, instead, of a much broader, open-ended RFC question, maybe something like:

Should WP:RSP be changed?

That would allow responses that advocate for change in various directions (smaller/bigger, looser/tighter, one list/two list, etc.), or no change at all. Thoughts? Levivich (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I doubt an open-ended RFC like that would likely produce a useful consensus. We should spend some more time on workshopping potential reforms first. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to break out sources by category.
So for example, breaking out all the WP:NEWSORGs into a separate page, then maybe all the social media, then all the NGOs, etc etc. Loki (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I would think for entries to be credible as a WP-wide guidance it should be about multiple articles involved, not multiple times discussed in perhaps just one article which would be more cleanly handled at that article. And for there to be some guidance about if and how the list is cleaned -- is it a forever ban regardless of years later changes, is it by they just age off, is it someone has to jump hoops to do a new RFC, or is it just WP:TNT the whole existing list and start over ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes/Support, reform is needed, if not abolition. The RSP list is an often misused tool with many people using it forgetting WP:RSPISNOT and WP:RSPIS and just outright using the list as an excuse to widely remove source citations that have been deprecated from any and all articles in which the sources appear.Iljhgtn (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is this not a guideline?

Considering how much this page gets cited in talk page discussions and the number of bytes typed out to make minor adjustments to single entries (for example), is there any real reason why it hasn't got upgraded to formal WP:PAG status yet? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Trivial answer: because there wasn't any interest the last time it was suggested. Personally, this just doesn't feel like guideline material, which possibly isn't any more satisfying of an answer. It's hardly the only widely-cited project page which isn't a guideline: for instance WP:BRD is an essay, and WP:NOTHERE is part of WP:BUILDWP which is also an essay. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Because as an explanatory essay, it's a list of how to apply a guideline. It's not consensus; instead, it's a summary of existing consensus found elsewhere. Usually, PAG contain procedures or principles that aren't subject to much change. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
And because it should not be. If it were to be, then it should receive much, much, much more broad based consensus than it has. It already does quite a lot of damage to Wikipedia as it is right now. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree, but damage‽ Aaron Liu (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
In the form of misuse and abuse. See WP:RSPISNOT and WP:RSPIS. These are oft ignored, and until that is resolved, yes, damage is being done to the encyclopedia's credibility and quality. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Academia.edu?

An article on this website was just cited as a source for text added to American Craftsman. Despite the ".edu", this seems to be just a website, of dubious reliability. Does anyone know more? WCCasey (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It's listed on the main page under Academic repositories. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Reliability of sources

There's a very important discussion on this topic, which may also be of interest here. If possible, it would be nice to move the discussion here. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

45cat.com

I've recently come across this site being used as a reference. However, looking at it's guide, it appears to be user generated content, and thus very likely not a reliable source. I had a look at the external links search for it, and there are 1700+ links to it across the project. Before embarking on removing all these links, I wanted to see what other people thought. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the page for discussing improvements to the perennial source list, you're looking for WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Like discogs.com, it's permitted in "External links", which might account for some, or even most, of those 1700+. I tend to use it since, like discogs, it often has label images, which tend to speak for themselves. See you at the noticeboard. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Bild

Why is Bild marked unreliable in the absence of RfCs and with only 3 discussions with only a few contributors? Alaexis¿question? 15:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a very unreliable German tabloid paper. Some sources don't need a full RfC to know they are unreliable.
Though if you do feel like contesting it, you are welcome to start one of course, though the result of it are all but guaranteed, so it might WP:SNOW in it. Raladic (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any examples of falsehoods that they published in the Wikipedia article about it. Alaexis¿question? 21:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe try reading the German version then? [4]. It's tabloid trash, exactly like the British red tops or the Daily Mail. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The lead of Bild (the en.wiki article) describes it as "tabloid in style", the journalistic equivalent of The Sun, and quotes the description "notorious for its mix of gossip, inflammatory language, and sensationalism". None of this suggests reliability, whether or not our article discusses specific falsehoods that it has printed. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia, I've just reviewed the German wiki article, specifically post-2015 events in the Verstöße gegen den Pressekodex section and I'm still not convinced it should necessarily be considered unreliable. But I may be missing the local context. In your opinion, what were the worst incidents in the last 5 years? Alaexis¿question? 20:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
According to a Foreign Policy article in 2022 [5] The ubiquitous German tabloid Bild and the online Bild.de are regularly sanctioned by the German Press Council, a body responsible for enforcing the German Press Code, for their violation of standard journalism ethics relating to personal privacy, among other issues. ... The Axel Springer press’s [Bild's owner] obsession with scandals and lurid photos of victims of catastrophes, traffic accidents, or other tragedies earned it recrimination from many corners. The German Press Council has sanctioned it well over 200 times since 1986—more than any other German publication. But these violations of basic journalism ethics obviously don’t faze Axel Springer media house, as these practices haven’t ceased. (In 2021 alone Bild media was reprimanded by the council 26 times.). The piece itself is pretty damning about Bild, including their nomalizing of anti-vaccine rhetoric during the COVID-19 pandemic. How much more evidence do you need that this is an unreliable source? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll review the article. However, violations relating to personal privacy have no bearing on the reliability. Alaexis¿question? 21:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I've bitten the bullet and created a RfC to settle the issue. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Bild Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Sticky header user interface community input

There has been an initiative to change the interface so that the gray header at the top of the table "follows around" as you scroll down. See: {{sticky header}}. Which of the choices below (A-E) do you prefer? What other ideas do you have?

The header is now 2 lines tall. What Timeshifter is now proposing (scroll down this example) is a narrow one-line sticky header with a link from the "Status" column head back to the "Legend" section of the article. And a link from the "Sources" column head back to the "Sources" section of the article. Notes explain this just above the table. He states this allows new users of the table to quickly return to the table TOC, or to quickly find the meaning of the legend icons. There are also improved notes above the table.

An issue in any skin other than the default Vector 2022: When you use the horizontal table TOC, or if you follow ("jump to") an anchored link within the table such as WP:FORBESCON, the top line of the note in the row you jump to would be covered by the narrow sticky header. 2 lines are covered by the 2-line header. Template discussions have not found a way to fix this. Timeshifter does not believe this is a serious problem. Others do. One solution (see E below) is to add a line's worth of blank padding at the top of each row.

  • A: No sticky header, same style (2-line) header as before.
  • B: Full size (2-line) header with sticky enabled.
  • C: Narrow (1-line) header without sticky enabled.
  • D: Narrow header with sticky header that follows you around. This has been improved. Please check again.
  • E: Same as D, but with padding at the top of each row.

Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC). Edited per WP:RFCNEUTRAL by Timeshifter (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC).

Another shortcut (for Forbes.com contributors) with the improved narrow-header version of the sticky table:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&oldid=1260153539#Forbes.com_contributors
The benefits of having the sticky header far outweigh the small inconvenience for the relatively few people using Vector 2010 of having to scroll up a tiny bit to see one line of missing text at the top of the notes column. They can see everything else in the Forbes.com row.
By the way, your history is off. The {{sticky header}} was up without complaints for over 2 months (since Aug 21, 2024) after I changed from {{sticky table start}} and did my final tweak. See Aug 21, 2024 version.
Recently, there were changes by the template editor that messed up the colors, but those have been fixed.
--Timeshifter (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
"This template is used on approximately 4,400 pages" sums up the use of the sticky banner. How does it look on mobile? Why reinvent the wheel here when the people shifting through the table know what the columns represent. Also, it's a Wikipedia namespace, not an article. Do whatever you want, I guess. – The Grid (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • A, C, D, B in decreasing order of preference, unless something can be done to prevent the overlapping of the header and the cell content (which might be fixable with a bit of cell padding at the top of the cells, at the cost of making the entire page visually longer; there might also be a JS way to fix this, by forcing a slight scroll-up after page load if a #Section link is in the URL). The overlap interfering with utility for everyone is not surpassed by the sticky header provding some utility to a minority of new editors at the page who aren't sure what the columns are. Especially given that it's pretty obvious what they are, and nearly no one needs most of them anyway, only Source and Summary. If the sticky header were imposed, then use the more concise version; the bigger one isn't actually any more helpful as a sticky. But if sticky is not imposed, maybe keep the more explanatory version, which provides a hint of organizational/thematic clarity as a top-of-table header that appears once. If not sticky, also put the header at the bottom of the table, so someone who doesn't remember what the columns are but is nearer bottom of page can scroll there to find out instead of all the way back to the top.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Cell padding at the top of each row would work.
A JS and/or CSS solution would be better. Any ideas how? That's beyond my level of skill.
I set up (and immediately reverted) a sticky narrow header with the "Sources" column head linking to the Sources heading. The "Status" column head links to the Legend heading. I substituted that version link for "D" above. Click it to see the changes.
This makes the sticky header much more useful. It allows one to instantly go to the legend section. New people are going to be confused by the legend symbols, and will want a rapid way to get back to that section. Especially important in Vector 2010 where the TOC doesn't follow you around.
The Sources column head link takes one instantly back to the horizontal table of contents from anywhere in the table without tedious scrolling. So one can choose another letter.
A header at the bottom of a long table is not as useful as a sticky header. It takes a long time to scroll from the middle of this long table to the bottom of the table.
I added a couple notes just above the table. See sticky narrow header with notes here.
--Timeshifter (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
It still causes the first line to be missing. Graywalls (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • A if editors want the benefit of a sticky header, they should enable that preference in the gadgets section of their preferences page. On this particular page, the benefit (if any), is minimal at best. When I use RSP, I know what source I am searching for and am basically looking for the color of the source and the discussion. I also use ctrl+f to quickly find what I am looking for sometimes. I was pleased when it was changed back to the status-quo. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Non-logged-in editors don't have that gadgets option.
So you have the meaning of the legend icons memorized? Good for you. But non-regular users of this page do not. The "status" column head link takes them to the Legend section. That link is handy because the sticky header follows the reader as they scroll down the table. Is it not useful to users who don't have the legend icon meanings memorized? --Timeshifter (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • A all the way. It simply works. Graywalls (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • D, E, C in decreasing order of preference. Benefits, especially for new or infrequent readers of this page, outweigh the tiny problem of one line of notes being covered in secondary skins. People know how to scroll up to see it. Vector 2022, the default skin, does not have the problem. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • A. The narrow benefit does not outweigh the narrow detriment of the scrolling issue, and the narrowed header is simply awful: the new "title" of the table is completely incomprehensible (until explained that it's supposed to be a stand-in for the bigger column headers, which, I'm sorry, what‽ Nobody who doesn't already understand the table will understand that.), and I find the appropriation of columns as navigation links incredibly weird and against how wikilinks usually behave (This point would be solved by turning them into, idk, tiny arrows that are linked instead of the header name, but you still have my other point.).
    Regarding Timeshifter's response to Isaid, I asked a family member of mine what each column meant without giving him the row headers. He identified every column except the year-last-discussed correctly (though he only identified the uses column after hovering over a link). The status icons tell you what they mean when you hover over them; heck, clicking on them already takes you to the appropriate paragraph under the legend section. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Aaron Liu for running the tests. So your family member who was new to the table could not identify what 2 of the 6 columns were about when looking at the table somewhere below the column headers. So the family member had no benefit of seeing the column header. For example, someone following a link like this: WP:FORBESCON. I added {{tooltip}} to the column heads just now. See diff. Maybe someday when the {{sticky header}} template is made to work correctly with the old Wikipedia skins (like Vector 2010), it can be added back. And we could use 2 header rows then for better clarity. And the sticky header will be of more use to someone like your family member now that {{tooltip}} info has been added to the 2 confusing columns. The header, being sticky, will be right there to help out.
By the way, the current header has an internal link in the column head (the "legend" link). I didn't add that. I see internal links regularly in Wikipedia articles and tables.
I made some improvements to the one-line sticky header example. I expanded and clarified the table caption. I also added some notes above the table. See this version of the table section. It's even more improved here:

Note. Click Sources column head to come back here. Click Status column head to go to the Legend section above. Click on any status column icon to go to its explanation above.

Perennial sources. Current status. Discussion links (with latest by year). Uses in Wikipedia articles.
Sources Status List Last Summary Use
ABC News (United States) Generally reliable 1 2

2021

There is consensus that ABC News, the news division of the American Broadcasting Company, is generally reliable. It is not to be confused with other publications of the same name. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links

--Timeshifter (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't find the "(legend)" link much offbeat because it clearly describes where it targets with its simple appearance. Meanwhile, linking "Sources" and "Status" this way runs against the paradigm/pattern of links going where their contents suggest. Same thing with the misappropriation of the table's name.
Also, just to clarify, my family member realized what the "use" column meant after he hovered over one of its links to see where it goes. I'd also suggest you use your sandbox instead of the RSP page to generate revisions to link to. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I tried a sandbox, but many of the links are on the URL blacklist. So that did not work. The "Sources" and "Status" links do go to where their contents suggest. I am sure your family member would have no problem figuring it out. Plus they are explained in a note at the top of the table. The table name is not misappropriated at all. In fact, it is good practice to move info out of the column headers and into the table caption. In order to make column headers less tall. Especially with sticky tables. Helps especially on cell phones. Look it up on the table help pages. And in the sticky header template docs. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
What I did with my sandbox while experimenting with implementing the tranclusion plan is transclude parts of the RSP list. That worked pretty well as far as I can tell.
"Status" linked suggests going to a page that documents what statuses are, and I can perhaps accept that one; however, "Sources" linked suggests going to a page that documents what sources are. Like I said, using those links in a situation where you link to Wikipedia articles is quite confusing.

Look it up on the table help pages. And in the sticky header template docs.

Well, you only added that to TM:Sticky header/doc in March and to Help:Table in September yourself this year. I see no evidence that the community at large accepts or understands such usage of the table caption, nor that it is accessible to screenreaders. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Table captions are required for screen readers. It's a MOS guideline too: WP:HEADERS. For many years now. Many people ignore the requirement. Many are clueless about the need or the requirement. Blind people want more detail in captions, not less. Putting more stuff in table captions is mentioned (for various reasons) in multiple table help pages. One of your links is actually an edit by the other main sticky table editor.
It takes only one use of the "Sources" link to figure out what is going on. People are creatures of habit. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for misinterpreting the first diff link I posted. But 1. I was asking how screenreaders would interpret a table header in a table caption 2. I disagree with your interpretation of @Jroberson108's edit as "describe all the separate parts of the parent table headers". Even if it were correct, this kind of table caption is useless because it does not describe which table headers are associated with which parts of the caption. According to Headers which references its linked ArticleTitles, table captions should describe the table, not the table headers. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not following some of what you are saying. On your user page I notice that English is not your native language. The table caption in the example above describes what is in the table: "Perennial sources. Current status. Discussion links (with latest by year). Uses in Wikipedia articles." --Timeshifter (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I know that's what it's supposed to describe. I don't see how anyone is supposed to realize that "Uses in Wikipedia articles", the fourth phrase in the caption, is supposed to be a description for the sixth column at first glance. Why do we even need to add those to the caption, whose usual use mandated by ArticleTitles is to describe the entire table and not just duplicate descriptions of column headers that can be accessibly, semantically, and straightforwardly-interpretedly added with {{tooltip}}? Is there any consensus besides just you to use captions to describe table headers? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I was pinged. Too much to read, but there seems to be some questions around table caption and screen readers. See w3.org: A caption functions like a heading for a table. Most screen readers announce the content of captions. Captions help users to find a table and understand what it’s about and decide if they want to read it. If the user uses “Tables Mode”, captions are the primary mechanism to identify tables. Also further down: The caption should be a short heading for the table content. A caption of "Perennial sources" or "List of perennial sources" should sufficiently describe the table. If there is another list, then differentiate them further in the caption (ex. Allowed list ... vs. Disallowed list ...). If they opt to read the table's content, then the column and/or row headers will help describe the data further. Jroberson108 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Jroberson108. The question is about the table caption as posted here. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Aaron Liu. "Uses in Wikipedia articles" in the caption tells a reader that is in the table. A caption does not tell readers where something is in the table. It just tells them it is in the table. It is in this table caption also because mobile users can't hover and read the {{tooltip}} note for "Uses" in the column headers. Same is true for "Discussion links (with latest by year)" in the caption. Mobile users can't read the {{tooltip}} note for "Last". I added those {{tooltip}} notes because your family member couldn't immediately identify those 2 columns when he/she was placed in them away from the headers. With the sticky header the family member is never away from the header.
The info could have been put in the notes above the table. But it is better in the caption because then it also helps people using screen readers. Serves a dual purpose: Describes the table better, and helps people using screen readers. Then the screen reader users have more info to decide whether to investigate the table further or not. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
The caption is not just for describing parts or columns that are in the table; it's for describing the entire table as a whole. The answer to mobile devices not being able to view tooltips is to start engineering tooltips to display on mobile, not misuse the table's accessible description: Who wouldn't be confused if their screenreader, asked to describe a table, gives them a seemingly random jumble of phrases? This absolutely does not help. Screenreaders are better served with the tooltips so that screenreaders know that information belongs to a specific column, not the entire table. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You need to take the tooltip on mobile problem to Phabricator. They are probably already working on it. They could probably use your help.

As to table captions you are one of the few people I have heard from who has complained about a table caption being too informative. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

As it's specific to enwiki wikitext, it's something I should prototype in the tm:tooltip/sandbox in the near future, not report to the WMF-wide phab.
You have yet to demonstrate that anyone besides you likes table captions "being too informative" in this manner. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
It's not too informative.
I see: Template:Tooltip and mw:Extension:SimpleTooltip and mw:Extension:RegularTooltips. And more in the "See also" sections of those MediaWiki pages.
Phabricator search for "tooltip". And "mobile tooltip".
--Timeshifter (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I was using your own words. Please demonstrate that another extended-confirmed editor agrees with your style of captions.
You’ll notice that none of the Phabricator “mobile tooltip” search results deal with what we’re talking about, thus proving my point. And those extensions have nothing to do with the HTML tags we’re talking about. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
There are many table captions as long as the one in the above example.
I don't claim to have any knowledge about getting tooltips to work on mobile. I just linked to places that might be useful. You might contact some of the people involved in other aspects of tooltips in order to work together on mobile tooltips of whatever flavor you all decide to try. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
It was never the length I was objecting to. It’s the usage of it to describe column headers instead of the entire table. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am glad you are not objecting to the length of the table caption. And as I said, the more detailed table caption serves multiple purposes: It allows for less-tall headers which is important for sticky headers in cell phones. It describes what is in the table. The info in the columns is part of the table. It helps those on mobile who can't read tooltips to have some inkling of what is covered by the column heads. It helps screen reader users to see more clearly what the table covers without having to dig down into the table. Which they greatly appreciate. Especially when the screen reader is in table mode, which allows them to skip from table caption to table caption. See:

There are multiple methods listed there, but as far as I have seen, only table captions are used on Wikipedia. "Approach 1" in the article looks interesting now that you have said that you do not object to longer captions. It is basically an expanded caption. I have no objection to it. I have been working here lately: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox279. Here is a possibility:

Note. Click Sources column head to come back here. Click Status column head to go to the Legend section above. Click on any status column icon to go to its explanation above.

Perennial sources. Current reliability status. Links to discussions.
The "List" column links to discussions. "Last" is last year discussed. "Use" shows use in articles.
Sources Status List Last Summary Use
ABC News (United States) Generally reliable 1 2

2021

There is consensus that ABC News, the news division of the American Broadcasting Company, is generally reliable. It is not to be confused with other publications of the same name. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links

--Timeshifter (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m not going to respond further if you don’t show that there is consensus for table captions like this. (And the summary example you linked is inside a longer summary element, not the caption element. I said the problem I had with the caption was far more fundamental than length, not that I don’t object to length per MOS:Caption.) Aaron Liu (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
See Help:Table#Captions and summaries. Its summary info is out of date though, and is obsolete in HTML5. That may be why I can't remember ever seeing it used:
{| summary="Summary text here."
The w3.org WAI summary example I linked is part of the caption element. From "Approach 1":
"The element acts as a heading of the table and provides the summary that describes the composition of the table as well. If implemented this way, the summary is available to visual users as well."
I have occasionally seen tables with captions extending to 2 lines.
There is no rule against it. And it appears that w3.org Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) endorses it for some tables. So that is consensus outside Wikipedia. And Wikipedia tries to meet accessibility standards. WAI is the main accessibility organization. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Where does WAI endorse non-summary captions that only describe a table header, or separated by periods?
Also, I think the |summary= parameter is a MediaWiki issue that should be fixed in MediaWiki to be HTML5-compliant, not by modifying wikitext. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Mediawiki doesn't decide HTML5 standards. summary= is part of HTLM4, not HTML5.

And as I have repeated several times, the single-line caption I provided describes the content of the table: "Perennial sources. Current status. Discussion links (with latest by year). Uses in Wikipedia articles."

The multi-line expanded caption is a method I did not know about before: "Approach 1" in here:

There are many table captions on Wikipedia with periods within the caption. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Tables in Wikitext are part of Wikitext, not HTML. The parser chooses how to render the Wikitext into HTML, and there is discussion about making it render the summary element instead. There’s no reason why the summary parameter can’t be rendered into HTML5.
I have also repeatedly told you that I object to this caption because I object to captions that only describe column headers instead of the entire table as a whole, and you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate that there is consensus for this. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
phab:T43917 is going nowhere. <summary> </summary> is not part of HTML5 as concerns tables. It is not mentioned here:
Caption & Summary, in Tables Tutorial. Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).
The single-line caption here describes what is in the table. It does not describe the column headers specifically.
On the other hand, the 2-line caption in the above example (as recommended by the WAI link in Approach 1) explicitly describes some of the column headers.
I edit a lot of tables. It is common in captions to provide, in addition to the general table description, some more specific details. Such as: "Rate is per 100,000 of all ages." That is very specific to the rate columns. This is done to prevent bloated headers. It is common.
You can repeat your preference forever, but it doesn't change the facts about existing table captions. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I was indeed confused about HTML5. My point still stands though that the Wikitext parser can find ways to make the output HTML5-compliant.
Everything after the first full stop describes individual columns (' headers). If you want a two-line caption, make a two-line caption with the smaller text in prose, and I might be fine with the caption.
The onus is on you to demonstrate that there is consensus for your preference. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't find the "Rate..." example you mentioned, could you link it? I think it would be better served with a footnote or a parenthetical within the header. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • D/B/E: If there were 10-20 entries having static headers would have made sense. But with so many entries, a static header is difficult to follow because it requires several hundred lines of scrolling. I have used RSP shortcuts to revert bad edits, or make arguments at move discussions, in both cases I expect majority of such visitors to not know beforehand what the header contents are. Which means that a visitor would need to scroll all the way to the top, look at what the header contents are, and then come back to understand what exactly the numbers, icons and colours mean. It is unnecessary inconvenience when we now have the ability to show sticky headers. Most regulars to this page and those with this talk page in their watchlists might not need the headers because they are already well-aware of what these columns are for, but it overlooks others' inconvenience. As someone who is not a regular to this page, I found it very convenient and that is the reason behind me adding sticky headers to the table (now reverted) unaware that there is already a discussion going on here. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

FoxNews

Considering the outcome of the recent election(s), and the previous polling reports, is it encyclopaedic to consider Fox News "not reliable" while other similar outlets like NBC and ABC are considered reliable? Seems quite suspicious how in the 2024 United States presidential election the sites used to report results consistently under-polled the winner of the election, while the one site who did the same thing less, is considered unreliable to be used there. 81.196.30.197 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

A single instance of them being right isn't going to swing against their general unreliability. Even a broken clock is correct twice per day... Captainllama (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
How about the Trump-ABC defamation suit that resulted in ABC paying 15 million to the Trump Presidential Library due to their constant, repeated false statements about him? How can they still be considered reliable? 2603:7080:81F0:8F0:0:0:0:10D1 (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Settlements are not legal precedence. And here, we know that this was basically over the issue of saying Trump was convicted of rape, when the court judge and under NY state law, he could only be convicted of sexual misconduct, even though the presiding judge said it was rape in their final opinion. That George S. pushed that point multiple points, he wasn't "wrong" or deliberately lying, compared to how Fox presented its topics. Masem (t) 23:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Single issues have little impact on whether a source is considered reliable, as sources are only ever considered 'generally reliable' (as even the best source can be wrong at times). For a source to be considered unreliable would require a long term lack of fact checking or accuracy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Imported YouTube videos

@Graywalls: Greetings! Regarding this revert...it sounds like I have failed to dispel the confusion. I'm trying to explain when WP:UGC does not apply to videos imported from YouTube, and it's when the user-generated content is not being used as a reliable source, but merely as a repackaging of a reliable source. For example, imagine someone made a 3D animation of how hurricane winds circulate and uploaded it to Wikipedia to illustrate the article hurricane. This is perfectly fine, and in fact encouraged and celebrated, as long as they cite a reliable source (for example, a series of diagrams published by NOAA) for the data used to create the animation. It is just as acceptable for the same video to be uploaded to YouTube under a suitable Creative Commons license, then re-uploaded onto Wikipedia, and added to the same article. What is not acceptable is to take videos from YouTube that cite no sources and treat them as accurate additions to articles without verification. It's also not acceptable for an editor to make an animation citing no sources and add that to an article by direct upload to Wikipedia, though we are a bit behind on our fact-checking. -- Beland (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why this note is necessary. UGC also applies even if hosted on Commons, since they also need to cite sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@Aaron Liu, Beland, and Graywalls: It's a subtle point. Any bozo can upload a freely-licensed Youtube video based on reliable data from a reliable source. But that video would not qualify as being from a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes due to the bozo intermediary. Now let's say another bozo, say me, uploads that video to the Commons. Since the video is based on reliable data from a reliable source, then it qualifies for the Commons. Assuming it is something within Commons:Com:Project scope.
In addition to a clarified, and possibly shorter, note, these 2 links could be added to Wikipedia:RSPYOUTUBE:
Commons:Category:YouTube
Commons:Com:YouTube files
--Timeshifter (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
lol, I made my reply below before I saw this. What do you think of it? Do you know of any rules I could link? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The use cases have come up in at least one RFC, where a reading of a contemporaneous public domain and verifiable source text was held to be "unreliable" as per this policy, despite the fact that the reading was being used for illustrative purposes. The same case could be used for a music performance, or an extract of a play, or poetry, etc. as well as the examples @Beland makes. However, these are not "unreliable" as they are performances or renderings of verifiable source material, and not being used for citation purposes. Some clarification of the difference between YT as a citation vehicle, and YT as a source of illustrative content, would help avoid future similar situations. Jim Killock (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
How about something like All videos uploaded, regardless of source, are treated the same way as images and other media. in a new paragraph? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
For mine, the necessary condition the user-generated content is not being used as a reliable source makes the usage off-topic for this page; which deals solely with the reliability of sources as references for article content. I do, however, see that the first sentence of the YouTube entry, Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. (emphasis added), is easily read as prohibiting a broader range of uses. Suggest that this be modified to refer only to use as a (reliable) source; e.g. ... should not be used as a reference or similar. The page would then be silent on the question of illustrative content. Rotary Engine talk 23:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Sounds very reasonable. I've implemented this. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
YouTube is available to everyone and it's widely used by those including official media outlets. So, unless they're official news coverage that happens to use YouTube and it's hosted on their OFFICIAL page, YouTube should be evaluated the same as blogs and home pages.
YouTube channels containing news clippings, or advertisement clippings from channels other than should not be found anywhere within Wikipedia on the ground of WP:COPYVIOEL. Graywalls (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I linked to illustrative, non-referential use. Here is current summary section:

Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used as a reference. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK. For illustrative, non-referential use see Commons:Category:YouTube.

--Timeshifter (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's certainly an improvement over the previous text; thanks for the condensation! -- Beland (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
While not yet convinced on the need to mention illustrative use on this particular page, I am fairly certain that Commons:Category:YouTube is not the best target for that link. @Timeshifter, could you check and confirm that another page was not the intended target? A Commons policy or guideline page perhaps? Rotary Engine talk 06:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps link to Mos:Images#Audio visual content where there is a line on this, and with an expanded version under consideration, draft 0.3 here. The explanation IMO needs to be on one or the other MOS page; it may make a bit more sense here for reasons of brevity and clarity. Jim Killock (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I've already changed the link to c:Commons:YouTube files. Someone else also added Wikipedia:Image use policy. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Amendments needed to the transclusion splitting plan

I was implementing Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 10#Tranclusion split partition scheme when I ran into a few issues:

  1. Transcluding the final eighth of the sources overruns the mw:Manual:Template limits#Post-expand include size, and even just the first 7/8 plus what's already transcluded on RSP ovverruns the limit.
    • i.e. the list of sources is too large to be trasncluded onto RSP.
  2. The page's edit notice needs to be adapted and displayed on the subpages.

Problem #1 may be solved by moving the list of sources onto a separate page and substituting the last two sections there. (As shown in User:Aaron Liu/sandbox, only substituting the last section is not enough.) Problem #2 may be solved by making the source list its own series of subpages by e.g. moving everything else under WP:Reliable sources/Perennial. Alternatively, Problem #1 may be solved by bumping $wgMaxArticleSize (the max post-expand include size), but that may be refused for security reasons. What do we think? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging: . We really should've seen this coming as the limit was also evident at User:Ivanvector/RSP split proposal. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have an informed opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Since it is useful to sort, what if you cut the table in half horizontally and linked to the other piece? That would be a large change though. Apenguinlover<talk>() 20:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
My experience news that this wouldn't help the post expand limit, but I'm not very knowledgeable in such technicalities and so thought I must be wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I think it definitely would help but would render the table quite inaccessible/clumsy. I’ve recently been researching maybe substituting all iconless discussion links. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
idea:
112 Ukraine
data-sort-value=2|Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019 Spam blacklist request 2020 Request for comment 2020

1

A B
data-sort-value=2020|

2020

112 Ukraine was deprecated following a 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus for the deprecation of a slew of sources associated with Russian disinformation in Ukraine. It was pointed out later in a 2020 RfC that 112 Ukraine had not been explicitly discussed in that first discussion prior to its blacklisting request. Further discussion established a rough consensus that the source is generally unreliable, but did not form a consensus for deprecation or blacklisting. The prior blacklisting was reversed as out of process. 112 Ukraine closed in 2021.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Special:ExpandTemplates on this row with the tables stuff removed:
[[112 Ukraine]]
:data-sort-value=2|[[File:Argentina - NO symbol.svg|20px|Generally unreliable|link=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Generally unreliable]]
:[[File:Treffpunkt.svg|20px|Request for comment|link=]]&nbsp;[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#RfC:_Deprecation_of_fake_news_/_disinformation_sites.|2019]] [[File:X-circle.svg|20px|alt=Spam blacklist request|link=]]&nbsp;[[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2020#State_sponsored_fake_news|2020]] [[File:Treffpunkt.svg|20px|Request for comment|link=]]&nbsp;[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#112.ua|2020]]
:[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#news-front.info|1]]
:<br />[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016)|A]] [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 4#112 Ukraine|B]]
:data-sort-value=2020|
:2020
:112 Ukraine was deprecated following a 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus for the deprecation of a slew of sources associated with Russian disinformation in Ukraine. It was pointed out later in a 2020 RfC that 112 Ukraine had not been explicitly discussed in that first discussion prior to its blacklisting request. Further discussion established a rough consensus that the source is generally unreliable, but did not form a consensus for deprecation or blacklisting. The prior blacklisting was reversed as out of process. 112 Ukraine closed in 2021.
:[[Special:Search/insource:"112.ua"|1]]&nbsp;[[File:Ic lock outline 48px.svg|16px|HTTPS links|link=Special:Linksearch/https://*.112.ua|class=skin-invert]]&nbsp;[[File:OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg|16px|HTTP links|link=Special:Linksearch/*.112.ua|class=skin-invert]]<br>[[Special:Search/insource:"112.international"|2]]&nbsp;[[File:Ic lock outline 48px.svg|16px|HTTPS links|link=Special:Linksearch/https://*.112.international|class=skin-invert]]&nbsp;[[File:OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg|16px|HTTP links|link=Special:Linksearch/*.112.international|class=skin-invert]]
We could nominate some wikitext on WikitextForDeletion, or we could do what Aaron suggested Apenguinlover<talk>() 11:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
“Wikitext for deletion”? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
The Wikitext for deletion part is a joke. I just mean that this can help expose what parts could be trimmed Apenguinlover<talk>() 16:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
What happens what you edit WP:RSP, 16 December 2024.
  • I am getting "page unresponsive" issues too often. Granted my laptop is not getting any healtheier, but neither is this project page. I also rarely get this problem on other articles, other than those equally oversized. As a point of context here, without wanting to toot my own horn, I am currently one of the top 5 editors of this page and WP:ARTICLESIZE issues has become a predominant reason for my to avoid making updates. The sooner these issues are resolved the better. CNC (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Mostly done

 Mostly done: After a bunch of substituting the RSNL template I trimmed, transclusion split implemented, taking up only 1634531 bytes out of the 2097152-byte post-expand include size−limit.

As mentioned above, now we just have to figure out the group notices. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's my tentative plan:
  1. We turn tm:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources into a group editnotice for all the subpages of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
    • This may or may not still display on the templates (see their tentative parentpage specified in the next step). I hope it doesn't, so we'll ask the template editor responding to the editnotice request about this and request that they move/open a move request on the next step after completing this step.
  2. We move the non-number subpages (which are all templates) (except /Header) under Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources templates.
Aaron Liu (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@ToThAc Lol, I should've tested that. As you can see at the start of this section, I actually did try that at first, but I skipped over it after it exceeded the transclusion character-count limit and broke all the citations (and the 8th part itself). Looks like it works now after I made a bunch of changes to and substituted the RSNLink template and replaced "Wikipedia:" with "WP:". Thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the change I was curious about. Why is it PS7 doesn't use {{rsnl| template but the other subpages still do? Anyway the change is a vast improvement editing wise, it's a smooth as it gets now. Congrats to those involved. CNC (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
As I've said in my updates to RSPI, all bare RSN links (i.e. no RfC, not active) were substituted. PS7 uses RSNL in all the places the other subpages do. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok understood, thanks for explaining. CNC (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Generalised section on advertorials in certain markets

Rather than having NEWSORGINDIA and now NEWSORGNIGERIA wouldn't in make more sense to have one section about concerns regadding promotional editorials? The different markets could still explained in that section. These aren't the only two markets where this happens, and it's only likely to become more common. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"WP:TVTROPES" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WP:TVTROPES to the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not TV Tropes has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 19 § WP:TVTROPES until a consensus is reached. 67.209.130.107 (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Change colour for Generally reliable from green to blue

Because red and green are problem colours for some colour blind people, why not change the classification colour for the Generally reliable category from green to blue? Specifically, the current #ddddff shade of green to its triadic #ddddff shade of blue.

  •   current green shade, #ddddff
  •   my proposed blue shade, #ddddff

⇒ Aerra Carnicom, they/them, 21:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The red-yellow/amber-green scale is more or less universally understood because of international standards on driving signal lights and we are using them to relay useful information to the audience (essentally green means go, yellow means proceed with caution, and red means stop both on the road and on wiki). IMO such a change would decrease accessibility severely, the negative is going to outweigh the positive by a factor of 10 or 100. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Horse Eye's Back. And besides, the proposed blue shade looks purple to me. It is not intuitive to think purple = generally reliable. Some1 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
On the other hand, accessibility for colorblind people is important. Maybe we could offer some kind of configurable toggle. Andre🚐 23:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
There was talk of a colorblind specific skin for wikipedia but I think that tapered off after a bunch of colorblind users pointed out that they already used a diverse set of tools to compensate (browser extensions and that sort of thing) and it wouldn't be terribly helpful for them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
 Request withdrawn, convincing counterarguments ⇒ Aerra Carnicom, they/them, 22:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Is Spotify reliable?

I have searched for it, but Spotify is not on this list. A question for moderators and experienced editors alike, is Spotify reliable for music-related pages? Xcrossing (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Reliable for musical metadata? If it's there, it should be treated as a primary source, for all that entails. Remsense ‥ 论 20:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
As far as I know, Spotify has never really been mentioned on Wikipedia before as an open and reliable source. Thanks! Xcrossing (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I would guess the reason is that it's usually unnecessary, as there are other resources much more suited to being cited as a reference for whatever one would be able to cite Spotify for. I would strongly recommend looking for reliable secondary sources first. Remsense ‥ 论 20:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
This should be posted at WP:RSN. Below are the previous discussions on the source.
CNC (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sputnik

I get that Sputnik is a propaganda outlet, but in a dozen occasions in the past, I have cited their articles from the Armenian version mostly on non-political stuff (culture, art, architecture) and on presenting the Russian viewpoint on Armenia-related issues, which we can all agree Sputnik is reliable. Much of this content cannot be found elsewhere. Shouldn't we make some exceptions instead of a blanked ban? --Երևանցի talk 07:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My impression is that Sputnik is not reliable at all for anything related to politics but they are okay elsewhere. Once I used it in an article about an obscure region in Caucasus for which no other source had information on whether people even lived there. It wasn't easy but eventually I managed to convince others to include it until better sources can be found. Alaexis¿question? 07:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, I think that this discussion needs to happen at WP:RSN. Alaexis¿question? 07:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Per above comment and talk header: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page." This topic is not about improving RSP, thus should be closed as off topic. CNC (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

VPP has an ongoing (ish) discussion about RSP processes

Please see § General reliability discussions have failed at reducing discussion, have become locus of conflict with external parties, and should be curtailed. Thought I'd drop a notice here since there's a comment wondering why it's not at WT:RSN. Since it's at VP already though, probably best to keep it at VP to avoid forking. Might drop one at WT:RSN as well though actually. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Status of RfC on Wen Wei Po ?

An RfC some years ago on Wen Wei Po reached a clear consensus, but the RfC was never formally closed out. It looks the RfC might be a bit old for a closure request. Should the outcome of that RfC be reflected on WP:RSP? Amigao (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

A consensus is a consensus and I would support this motion. However, given how things unfolds in the following years, I would also support another RfC. MilkyDefer 08:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
WP:RFCCLOSE says If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable so the fact that the RfC was not formally closed is not an issue. There was also a previous discussion here back in 2011. That said, given that it's been nearly five years since the last discussion and there have apparently only been two discussions in the history of RSN makes me think there's no compelling reason to add it to RSP. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
It wants to deprecate, and the deprecated sources list was merged into this page, so I would add it. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

RLL and EFD for deprecated sources

Is there a reason we link to the revert-list discussions and edit-filter diffs that only serve to implement the consensus of the RfC, as if they were major discussions, and then slap a year-marker on it? It unnecessarily takes up a ton of space and seems to be a relic within the merge from Deprecates sources. I propose that we drop the text and have it show as part of the icons' hover text instead. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

These links are indeed a vestige of the old format of the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources page, and they do not need to remain in the list. This information can be tracked on a different page.​ — Newslinger talk 02:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I've removed the RLLs and changed the EFDs to just an icon. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

udiscovermusic

Can this source be a reliable source? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 14:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Camilasdandelions: as the notice at the top of this page says, questions about the reliability of individual sources are better discussed at WP:RSN. If you start a discussion there it would be helpful to give a little more context, too Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Done, thank you for the information! Camilasdandelions (talk!) 14:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Planespotters.net

Based on the lengthy WP:PLANESPOTTERS discussion at RSN (2023) and this shorter follow-up, should Planespotters.net be added to the RSP list as "generally unreliable"? —173.56.111.206 (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd say so. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
@Aaron Liu: Thanks. This edit is my first attempt to add anything to the RSP list. See if it looks OK to you? —173.56.111.206 (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Looks good! Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
OK, and I just did this edit for the CITEWATCH list, once I saw that Template:JCW-selected says "Red links are fine". I'll keep watching for a week to make sure everything seems stable. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

02/2025: sorting by country?

Can the WP:RSPSS give a way to sort the sources by country? Thanks for reading this and replying me. DaqibaoQi (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant to the purpose and utility of RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
If anything, it might be helpful for RSP to identify the non-English sources by language, rather than by country. For example, it could occasionally help editors to know: "For English Wikipedia, which perennial Arabic-language sources are considered most or least reliable?" On the other hand, it would be complicated to handle multi-lingual sources, like the Spanish version of CNN, or the English version of Al Jazeera, or the English & French versions of Canadian publishers. Probably more trouble than it's worth, if it would be used only rarely. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Okay, is it realistic to identify the reliability for every newspapers in the world? That's would be very helpful to editors. DaqibaoQi (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
It is not viable at all, since we'd have to analyze and discuss the reliability of sources to list them. This page is for sources that are often cited on Wikipedia. We're not a media reliability outlet per se, and it's best not to treat us like one. Remsense ‥ 论 23:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for your help. DaqibaoQi (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Sources whose reliability is often discussed on Wikipedia, but yeah. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Because I think the nation's newspaper is more reliable (for non-politics news). DaqibaoQi (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Are you making reference to WP:XINHUA? Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
No, but still thanking for replying me. My issue is now solved and this talk can be closed. DaqibaoQi (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Add Skeptical Inquirer to the list

(moved from WP:RSN) I would like to request Skeptical Inquirer be added to the list. This isn't an attempt to relitigate anything – it just seems like a waste to have a whole 2022 RFC about an often-used source and then not mention the conclusion somewhere, especially since it seems like its reliability comes up a lot. (I'm afraid to do it myself since it seemed like a hairy discussion.)

I bring this up because I cited the RFC on a new editor's talk page to explain its reliability. It seems kind of awkward to say "we talked about it but it's not on the main list, look in the archives and read this whole thing". Iiii I I I (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You don't need approval from anyone to add something to the list as long as it meets the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Inclusion criteria. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Right, I'm just worried about summing up such a long discussion incorrectly. Iiii I I I (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Added to WP:RSP in this edit. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Why not sticky header?

Hi @Graywalls, you removed the sticky header and commented a link: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 11. I checked out the relevant section, Sticky header user interface community input, but it's really long. I skimmed it and it seems to go off on a few tangents too. But I saw most votes saying option A, i.e. no sticky header, and one of the reasons is that if you jump to an anchor in the table, the header can jut into or even cover the row in question. Is that a reasonable summary? I'm just looking to understand the reason for the revert without having to read the whole long discussion. — W.andrea (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yep. So after discussion, the general consensus was to maintain the old way, which was no sticky header. Graywalls (talk) 22:23, 15 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)

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)

Christian Broadcasting Network

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

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)

"Not supported by source"

I thought I came across a notation some time ago, similar to [citation needed], 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)

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)

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:

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)

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)

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)

New World Encyclopedia

Additions of this source trigger the "deprecated source" tag, which links to this page, but there are no entries for this source on this page (unless I've missed it?). Should there be, or should such edits be otherwise tagged? The current state is potentially confusing to users, since they're directed here but find no information. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The tag may be better off pointing to WP:DEPS, the information page which explains what deprecation is. As far as I can see, the New World Encyclopedia has never been formally deprecated through a discussion at RSN, and is as such correctly not listed as deprecated on this page. The most recent mention of it at RSN (in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 370#Deprecate sources repeating citogenetic claim (discovery of alcohol & sulfuric acid)). According to that discussion, it is an internet encyclopedia produced by the Unification Church that selects and rewrites certain Wikipedia articles through a focus on Unification values – so clearly an unreliable source.
The edit filter which warns for the use of deprecated sources is Special:AbuseFilter/869. I can't find any documentation there on whether it is intended only for sources which have been deprecated via RfC, but it looks as though it was initially set up in response to the Daily Mail deprecation RfC. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
All deprecated sources are listed on this page. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
New world encyclopedia was added to the filter yesterday by Ohnoitsjamie with the summary "Adding alchetron and newworldencylopedia (both user-generated sources; the latter is a fork of Wikipedia)". The source isn't deprecated, which has effects beyond the edit filter, as there hasn't been a RFC to do so (DEPS says a RFC should happen and that "the restrictions are only applied if there is community consensus"). A separate filter for UGC/CIRCULAR sources could be helpful, as it could include wording and a link to something more appropriate than DEPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps the edit filter message should be amended. (Also, I wonder if the edit filter passes the message any parameters so that maybe we could display the offending line/source?) Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I did not realize that there was a formal policy around documentation for that filter, I'm happy to remove my entries. Alchetron is a user-generated wiki, and newworldencyclopedia is a POV fork of Wikipedia. Ideally both should be blacklisted, but unfortunately there are a lot of existing links that will take a long time to clean up. I previously had both of these on one of my disruption filters, which I didn't like because most users add these links in good faith. OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
How about we just start an RfC to deprecate all of the sources you added to the filter? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm fine with that; should the RfC be posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard or somewhere else? OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
It should be on RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree with both deprecation and an RfC; a Wikipedia fork is inherently unreliable (per WP:WPINARS) and one which intentionally ignores neutrality for the sake of promotionalism even more so. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
There's been several RFCs recently for forks or UGC, just so they can be added to the filter. The deprecation process is overkill for such sources, policy is already clear they shouldn't be used. But filter 869 is the only tool available to warn editors before they add such a source as a reference, and the warning of that filter is specifically about deprecation. A new filter, "This is UGC, CIRCULAR, FORK are you sure you should be adding it?", would be useful, but I wouldn't know how to even start getting consensus for such a thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Discussions are at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested, but I'm sure @Ohnoitsjamie could unilaterally create such an uncontroversial filter. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I was thinking about creating a new filter until discovered 869; I'm happy to do that as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

investing.com

Hey, I wanted to add a website covering the historic exchange rate of USD/TRY of investing.com as a reference. But then it said: "This site is blocked. This source is considered unreliable by our community, and therefore is not allowed. Please choose a different reliable source."

But investing.com is not listed here in WP:RSP. Don't all perennial sources need to be listed here in the WP:RSP article and explained what part of it is a bad source? Only the written articles of investing.com or also historic exchange rates? WikiPate (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@WikiPate Are you sure that's what it said? The message you saw should've been MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext, which mentions the blacklist and not deprecated sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes that the exact text. You can try it by yourself by trying to add the investing.com website that's shown first in the Google search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=historical+data+usd+try+investing.com
I cannot add the investing.com URL here because for that imvesting.com is also blocked.

investing.com is not on Wikimedia's global blacklist. I couldn't find Wikipedias blacklist. Where is it? And can I see the discussion somewhere if only news articles of investing.com are considered spam? WikiPate (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Please read the first link in that message.
Blacklisted sources that aren't perennial (see the "inclusion criteria" section here) are not included at RSP. Consult the blacklist archives for those. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Explanation of 'contentious claim'

It should arguably be explained somewhere what is meant by a 'contentious claim'. A claim that is contested by any editor? A claim that is known to be contested by someone IRL? A claim that an editor considers likely to be contested by someone IRL? 62.73.72.3 (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

In practice it means any claim that is challenged by any editor, in theory it also applies to any claim that will be challenged in the future but I'm sure its clear why thats purely theoretical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Presumably an editor challenging is doing that based on contradictory RS, at any rate it should be fairly obvious when a claim is contentious (calling it a WP:CLAIM implies that anyway). Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
I think it's related somewhat to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing; contentious claims may not need exceptional sourcing, but they need good sourcing, and all of the examples of "exceptional" claims are also contentious claims. User:Collect made an essay about this at Wikipedia:Contentious which I agree with. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Washington Free Beacon

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Washington Free Beacon
 – Aaron Liu (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Suggested clarification on Insta and other social media dicsussions

I came to this page with a question about citing Instagram. The Instagram discussion is essentially a reference to four other places:

"Instagram is covered by the following policies and guidelines: WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:RSSELF, WP:SPS and WP:UGC".

Needing to click four links to find the answer I was looking for is a bit daunting. It would have been less daunting, and would have saved time, to know what I learned when I checked them. RSSELF and SPS are exactly the same content, in different places. Also UGC is a subpara of SPS. The answers that this is referring people to are fully contained in two places, not four.

So I suggest changing the reference from four places to two, for example only WP:SPS and WP:SOCIALMEDIA, dropping RSSELF and UGC. A second-best fix would be to keep all four but note that RSSELF has the same content as SPS and that UGC is a subpara of SPS. This edit would make the instructions more clear and less daunting.

As a separate, related, question, why don't other social media sites - I quickly checked Facebook and Twitter - get generally consistent instructions? These policies are not cited for the other networks - instead some are linked in text, eg, "As a self-published source, it is considered" and others are paraphrased or ignored. More consistent description of how to treat social media sources in this chart would seem better and more clear. Sullidav (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Question about student media

The section on student media says this: However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. Is this a complicated way of saying that it's just a primary source? Because the phrasing as-is implies that student media could be used as a notability qualifying source for other subjects and I've never seen it applied that way. But I don't want to cause a substantial change in meaning without seeking other editors' input first. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I dunno. All I know is I would advocate to allow student media to count towards notability for things that aren't about home institutions. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
The reason I'm asking is because it has implications for an AfD that's going on right now. If there's been an RfC or anything that gives some sort of precedent, that would be tremendously helpful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there's been any discussion solely about this topic, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46#Are student-run college newspapers considered reliable sources? has consensus that it does provide notability for things outside of said college. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

filmreference.com

The 2019 discussion said that the site is blacklisted. A 2022 discussion that asked to remove 3,141 citations also seems to have seen no action. Do we add it to the perennial list as unreliable? Do we start removing the citations? Jay 💬 09:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It's listed under Advameg. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Jay, as a general rule, it would be better to "replace" the citations instead of "removing" them.
We could probably tag all the uses (a one-time WP:AWB run), which would help identify them as needing replacement. Maybe something like {{better source needed |reason=filmreference.com is on the spam list; please replace with a reliable source |date=May 2025}} would work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Sure, who do we ask for the AWB run? Jay 💬 15:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. I would also link to the Advameg RSP entry in the replacement. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Or in the edit summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I had seen Advameg in the discussions, but did not understand the relevance of it wrt rating filmreference in the reliability scale. Jay 💬 15:34, 8 May 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)

Why on earth is it over there as opposed to here or RSN? - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
I did wonder that, or at least sort out the disagreement over "no consensus" first. The discussion at VPI shows there's disagreement. Maybe along with 'reliable source, but not for this particular issue', which is also listed in two different ways. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Separating into two colors was also sort of the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 10#No consensus versus mixed consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Solely meta-RSP matters don't discuss the reliability of a source. Though I don't oppose notifying RSN as well, I feel like there's separation in topic between these two pages and posting at RSN would be a little off the topic of discussing the reliability of sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
The discussion about splitting colours had a lot of detractors, I'd feel on much firmer ground with more easily discernable consensus.
Discussion about what colours to use at RSP or other aspects of it's formatting don't belong on RSN, but notification is always an option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
David was the only detractor against the very idea of splitting.
Since there's popular demand I will notify when I start the actual proposal (that was the Idea lab) at VPr I guess. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Split "additional considerations apply"/"marginally reliable" from "no consensus" at RSP

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Split "additional considerations apply"/"marginally reliable" from "no consensus" at RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The Observer

The Observer separated from The Guardian in late April 2025, and has been given a new URL for post-The Guardian ownership articles. I have not seen any WP:RSN discussions about either since late 2024, so the Observer may need to be separated from the Guardian entry at least partially. Xeroctic (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

There were discussions of it before that, though. If you have concerns about its reliability you could start an RSN discussion, otherwise I don't see a problem with GRel status. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia article

There is now a Wikipedia article about this list at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Feel free to help expand the article if you are interested. The {{Press}} box at the top of this talk page is full of news coverage. — Newslinger talk 08:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

what is the need for this article ? why is it in article namespace?Cinaroot (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
When an aspect of Wikipedia becomes notable, an article is sometimes made about it. See Category:Wikipedia for a collection of articles about Wikipedia itself. — Newslinger talk 06:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Can we change article name to Reliable sources ? and mention Perennial sources in body Cinaroot (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
also Wikipedia:Reliable sources is enough to explain about reliable sources imo. Cinaroot (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm also not sure about the name of the article. If you have a better suggestion, feel free to discuss it on Talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, or start a requested move. The purpose of an article-space page is to describe the article subject to a reader who may not necessarily be a Wikipedia editor. For example, the academic publications about RSP and the media coverage of RSP usually aren't relevant in project space, but they are in article space. — Newslinger talk 08:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Archive_11&oldid=1295116787"