Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard
To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here will not be taken into consideration.
This page is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability
This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
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]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? --Երևանցիtalk07:19, 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]
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?
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]
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.
