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]

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]

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)[reply]

I don't see how that's relevant to the purpose and utility of RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your help. DaqibaoQi (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources whose reliability is often discussed on Wikipedia, but yeah. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think the nation's newspaper is more reliable (for non-politics news). DaqibaoQi (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you making reference to WP:XINHUA? Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Right, I'm just worried about summing up such a long discussion incorrectly. Iiii I I I (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added to WP:RSP in this edit. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:RS/P
No tags for this post.