Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 31 days ![]() |
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | Note: This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the Noticeboard itself. Please post questions or concerns about sources and articles on the main project page: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For the record, the discussion about creation of this noticeboard took place here and here. |
![]() | This noticeboard has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Renaming "Option 4" in RfCs
[edit]The typical four option RfC on this page goes:
This inaccurately implies that deprecation is another level of unreliability beyond WP:GUNREL, which is a common misconception for those !voting. Specifically, WP:DEPRECATION says deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable.
Deprecation is more accurately described as a system to warn editors and autorevert editors when they use a generally unreliable source. It would be more accurate if our RfCs had the following set of options:
- Generally reliable
- Additional considerations apply
- Generally unreliable
- Generally unreliable, with deprecation
I think the above wording would be better going forwards. I got it from a previous discussion held on this page a long time ago, and I thought we might as well start trying to use it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Doing away with Option 4 altogether is another thought, with a requirement that before a source is subject to Gunrel/Dep, Gunrel first is a requirement (so then RFCs for that are a straight yes/no for already Gunrel sources). Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Neutrality and sourcing in Education section
[edit]The current version contains several claims needing review:
Disputed Claims
[edit]- "Rejected by Kinnaird College..." - Lacks reliable sourcing
- "Scandal with Capt. Safdar..." - Pejorative framing
Proposed Changes
[edit]Replace with neutral phrasing supported by:
- GEO TV ([1]) confirming her Master's degree
- Pakistan Times ([2]) noting KEMC attendance
Requesting consensus on these improvements per WP:NPOV. Dg creative (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- You appear to be referring to an issue with a specific article (Maryam Nawaz I assume). This should be discussed on the article talk page, and then possibly at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if the matter cannot be resolved after discussion. This page is intended for discussing changes to the reliable sources noticeboard itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- You have already raised this on the noticeboard, anyone interested should see WP:RSN#Neutral Sourcing for Maryam Nawaz's Education Section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes this discussion belongs in the talk page of the article, not this noticeboard. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinkvilla has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 2405:6E00:280D:D88B:1CD2:D6FF:FEB2:FB43 (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Black Kite ActivelyDisinterested TurboSuperA+
- Do you mind adding your comments and thoughts from previous discussions to the RfC ? 2405:6E00:280D:D88B:1CD2:D6FF:FEB2:FB43 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- . 2405:6E00:2821:4650:E855:93FF:FE85:CAA2 (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Next to noone watches this page, and you're notifying the talk page of the page where the RFC is happening so anyone who would ever watch this page has already seen the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have any suggestions to the publicize the RfC more ? 2405:6E00:2223:8E51:ECE9:FF:FE32:D62 (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Next to noone watches this page, and you're notifying the talk page of the page where the RFC is happening so anyone who would ever watch this page has already seen the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- . 2405:6E00:2821:4650:E855:93FF:FE85:CAA2 (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Existence of cited sources
[edit]Is this the proper venue to ask for help in determining whether the (unlinked) sources cited in an article even exist? Largoplazo (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- I can't think of a better place immediately, so fire away. The worst that can happen is that you get redirected elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Phil Bridger. Ask here, you'll get plenty of eyeballs. Mackensen (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Largoplazo (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Question
[edit]Good evening. Can I use this page to discuss not just the resources themselves, but rather their individual materials in context? Lately, I've increasingly seen individual materials, rather than the websites themselves, become the subject of debate. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- The page you want is WP:RSN rather than this one (this one is intended for discussion of the noticeboard itself rather than for discussion of any specific potential source, which is why the notice at the top of this page says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard"). If by "individual materials" you mean things like specific webpages or specific articles, not just websites in general, yes, you can absolutely ask about that at the RSN, and it's preferred to ask about them in context. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- If any example is needed, I'm currently arguing with two other users about the interpretation of the source in the Alien: Earth article. We all acknowledge its authority, but its scope has generated considerable debate, including a request for checkusers and a protracted dispute. Trying to get the attention of other users didn't have much success, so I thought about asking someone to evaluate the source or act as a third party intermediary. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- And you can absolutely ask others for their take at WP:RSN. I suggest that you take it there. This is the RSN talk page rather than the RSN itself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. I suggested other users try looking for a mediator or a broader platform first, but if that doesn't work, I'll try writing here. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by "here." The point I've been trying to make is that this page is the wrong place. This page is not the noticeboard. If you simply click on WP:RSN, that's the noticeboard, and it will give you a broader platform. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- I meant the WP:RSN you mentioned. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by "here." The point I've been trying to make is that this page is the wrong place. This page is not the noticeboard. If you simply click on WP:RSN, that's the noticeboard, and it will give you a broader platform. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. I suggested other users try looking for a mediator or a broader platform first, but if that doesn't work, I'll try writing here. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- And you can absolutely ask others for their take at WP:RSN. I suggest that you take it there. This is the RSN talk page rather than the RSN itself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- If any example is needed, I'm currently arguing with two other users about the interpretation of the source in the Alien: Earth article. We all acknowledge its authority, but its scope has generated considerable debate, including a request for checkusers and a protracted dispute. Trying to get the attention of other users didn't have much success, so I thought about asking someone to evaluate the source or act as a third party intermediary. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- WP:RSN is specifically for discussing individual matters in context. These are the normal but tend to be answered and archived relatively quickly, while discussing a whole source can be more prominent as they take longer and so are in the board for longer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)