Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


RLL and EFD for deprecated sources

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I've removed the RLLs and changed the EFDs to just an icon. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Also, I think that this discussion needs to happen at WP:RSN. Alaexis¿question? 07:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Is Spotify reliable?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This should be posted at WP:RSN. Below are the previous discussions on the source.
CNC (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VPP has an ongoing (ish) discussion about RSP processes

[edit]

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)[reply]

Status of RfC on Wen Wei Po ?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

udiscovermusic

[edit]

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

@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)[reply]
Done, thank you for the information! Camilasdandelions (talk!) 14:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is https://www.show.news/ reliable?

[edit]

I have observed that certain Wikipedia pages cite this website as a reference. I would like to inquire about the trustworthiness and legitimacy of this site for use as a reference. In my view, the website appears to resemble a blog more than a credible source.

I'd like to see that website to be included on this list WP:RSPSOURCES Newpicarchive (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&oldid=1276320356"