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)[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]

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)[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

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]

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)[reply]

I'd say so. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Looks good! Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:RS/P
No tags for this post.