Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Header tweak

I've tweaked the RSN header, mostly adding [Before starting an RFC on a previously-discussed source, ask yourself Do we need another discussion on this source? Has something changed?].

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This duplicates the sentence directly below RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. Having the same sentiment twice is not going to get editors to read it, extra clutter just means that editors are less likely to read the header at all.

This is especially true when the edit notice that appears when you start a new section has an even blunter sentence stating that you shouldn't open an RFC. So I don't see how stating it for a third time is going to have anymore impact.

Instead of duplicating the whole thing would highlighting the pre-existing sentence be a better option, see example here (the formatting still needs work, it has issue on some screens). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't duplicate it at all. Above it says check that these discussions about the source haven't happened already, and that you're not just threading old grounds. There's 50+ discussions on Daily Mail. Over 45 for NYT and Twitter. 30+ for IMBD. Near 20 for CNN. We don't need more discussion on those sources unless something drastic happens to them.

Below is says don't start an RFC about a source unless it's widely used and there was multiple discussions about it. That's because you shouldn't jump to an RFC as a first resort. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok I think I've slightly misunderstood you intent, but I still think having to sentences for two very similar issues isn't necessary. Would modifying the current sentence on RFCs be a way forward? Adding a part on not starting a new RFC unless there is material reason for doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that extra note is necessary. The header already tells editors to check the archives, and as a regular lurker, I don't see people opening discussions about over-discussed sources too much. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Page is very large right now

And a big chunk of it happens to be a single closed RfC. Would it be OK to manually archive it, so that the page size can be reduced? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I had been thinking the same, loading the board is glitchy at the moment. So I would support manually archiving it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I'm going to archive it now, manually. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Appropriate post?

I've been lurking here quite a while, and today started a new section but then on reflection, deleted it. Diff

I want to make editors aware of declining standards of Reach plc's local UK titles, but I appreciate that RSN isn't the place for general discussions of reliability that aren't related to specific contexts (I did include a couple, but overall I was talking generally). If any experienced editors are willing to take a look at the diff and give me feedback I'd be grateful. I feel like the potential for misinformation ending up in Wikipedia is high, but not sure the best way to address it. Orange sticker (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry this talk page doesn't get a lot of traffic. Your should re-add your diff to the main board. It's always helpful to include context, but if you just looking for advice or general feedback that's also fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Manual archiving of the Al Jazeera section

I'm thinking of manually archiving the Al Jazeera section later today, as discussion appears have moved on to starting a RFC and the board is creaking at the seams. Moving 200k into the archives would bring it back to just buggy not broken. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

As there's been no comment I'm going to archive the section. That will get the board down to 500k, still to big but it's a start. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 445 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Preload formatting

We generally want the same bits of information for each source, so I am wondering if we could Wikipedia:Preload some of this. It could say something like:

• Link to article or section: Example
• Link or citation for source: https://www.example.com/page.html
• Exact text you want to add, remove, or change in the Wikipedia article: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua."
• Why you think this source is/isn't reliable for this statement: I think this is a reliable source because...

Do you think that would help editors, especially folks new to this noticeboard, organize the information that they need to provide? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Investor's Business Daily

Since Investor's Business Daily is used in citations it appears to be regarded as a reliable source but Investor’s Business Daily Short-Arms Correction, Investor's Business Daily editorial doesn't support claims ... and In Which Investor's Business Daily Completely Mangles My Data. cast doubt on its reliability. As a result I don't know how seriously to take Terrorist Ayers Confesses Sharing Obama's 'Dreams' published in 2013, especially in the light of Bill Ayers Punks Conservative Blogger and Bill Ayers: Sure, I Wrote Obama’s Book. Now How ‘Bout Those Royalties? originally published in 2009. Mcljlm (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)