Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
Add topic | 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. Before opening an RSN discussion, editors are advised to read the reasons past discussions have resulted in the source's current status. Past discussions on a source are listed in the third column of each source's entry. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page. |
|
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 21 days  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | We've hit PEIS technical limits at the Perennial sources table, and at this time, no further rows can be added to this page. We saw this problem coming, and we are working on it. Until this issue is resolved, you are welcome to modify existing rows: adding new discussion and RfC links, marking staleness, expanding the Summary, and so on is fine, but please do not add additional rows to this table. If you have a new source that needs to be added to the table, please add it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/X for the time being. According to the result of this RfC, the table format will be replaced by one involving separate pages. You are invited to discuss the new format. |  |
Sky News/News24
[edit]Can someone please update the Sky News Australia entry? They rebranded and now they're called News24. I would have done so myself, but I can't figure out how to get to the template. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
Resolved: I have made the change to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/7. If you need further help with this, then feel free to let me know if there is anything else that needs changing. (Sorry about the double ping due to the issue with the edit summary.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Why is a source getting "borderline" warning but not listed here?
[edit]This has happened to me several times: I'll find a source and put it in an article; and the source will be highlghted yellow or pink. The pop-up warning says something like "Borderline source ..." [I cannot copy the warning text, so I cannot post the full warning here]. I then come to this Perennial list to learn more about the source, and the source is not in this page. Here is an example source:
- Stewart, Mathew; et al. (2025). "The State of the Late Quaternary Megafauna Extinction Debate: a Systematic Review and Analysis". Frontiers in Mammal Science. 4 1678231. doi:10.3389/fmamm.2025.1678231. Retrieved 11 October 2026.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
To be clear: I am not inquiring about this specific source! My question is more general: Why does this Perennial List not align with the list of sources that are used for the yellow/pink warning graphics (seen in articles)? When I see the yellow/pink warnings, I come to this Perennial list hoping to get more details so I can make a decision, but the source is rarely listed here. Noleander (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- This sounds like you have something special set up in your preferences or gadgets. Have you changed your settings in the last three months or so? --Super Goku V (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I have some gadgets set up that issue warnings on cites (mostly formatting). I like the gadgets & warnings. These are common gadgets. I do not know the name of the gadget that is issuing these yellow/pink warnings. I presume that experts in WP:RS know about the gadgets: certainly some experts here have the gadgets enabled themselves and can identify where the gadgets are getting their "list of potentially bad sources" from. Noleander (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, this is interesting. I just found a json file that might be it at Wikipedia:TESTING-DONT-USE-unreliable.json. You should check if buzzfeed.com and mdpi.com trigger the same warning and if academia.edu triggers a different warning. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- See the notes at WP:CRAPWATCH#Frontiers Media and Frontiers Media in general. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: Thanks for the info. But I can handle the Frontier issue fine. My question is big picture: Many editors come to this list for assistance, but it seems to be missing many suspect sources (such as Frontier Media). Why is this List missing so many suspect sources? Noleander (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- Because this is a list that cover sources that get discussed over and over and over and over and over. There can be consensus that a source is borderline without 17 discussions about it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:40, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- Is there an official WP list of sources that are borderline? There may be editors that are not using a "borderline source" gadget and want to consult a textual list. The list Wikipedia:TESTING-DONT-USE-unreliable.json posted below by another editor looks very outdated and unofficial. Noleander (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- That's just a test related to trying to JSON-ify WP:PREDSCRIPT, it's nothing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:51, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- Is there an official WP list of sources that are borderline? There may be editors that are not using a "borderline source" gadget and want to consult a textual list. The list Wikipedia:TESTING-DONT-USE-unreliable.json posted below by another editor looks very outdated and unofficial. Noleander (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- Because this is a list that cover sources that get discussed over and over and over and over and over. There can be consensus that a source is borderline without 17 discussions about it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:40, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Super Goku V: - I can see yellow warnings here in this Talk page. So here are the two URLs you mentioned. These both appear yellow to me: Noleander (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- Stewart, Mathew; et al. (2025). "The State of the Late Quaternary Megafauna Extinction Debate: a Systematic Review and Analysis". Frontiers in Mammal Science. 4 1678231. doi:10.3389/fmamm.2025.1678231. Retrieved 11 October 2026.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - Stewart, Mathew; et al. (2025). "The State of the Late Quaternary Megafauna Extinction Debate: a Systematic Review and Analysis". Frontiers in Mammal Science. 4 1678231. doi:10.3389/fmamm.2025.1678231. Retrieved 11 October 2026.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
- Stewart, Mathew; et al. (2025). "The State of the Late Quaternary Megafauna Extinction Debate: a Systematic Review and Analysis". Frontiers in Mammal Science. 4 1678231. doi:10.3389/fmamm.2025.1678231. Retrieved 11 October 2026.
- Again, I'm not complaining about the gadget or the yellow warnings. I'm asking why this Perennial List is missing suspect sources such as Frontier (?? and others listed in Wikipedia:TESTING-DONT-USE-unreliable.json ... if that is the list used by the gadget, I'm not sure it is). Noleander (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- Is the software that flags the sources advertised an identifying suspect sources or suspect sources that are also perennial? The PS list is "only sources that have been repeatedly raised for discussion are listed here; it is not a general or comprehensive list of all generally reliable or unreliable sources..." -- Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: - Thanks for the info about PS being limited to high-visibility sources. Does WP have a larger list of sources that are borderline (but fall short of PS notoriety)? There may be editors that are not using a "borderline source" gadget and want to consult a textual list. The list Wikipedia:TESTING-DONT-USE-unreliable.json posted above by another editor looks very outdated and unofficial. Noleander (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- That's a good question. The All caps TESTING-DONT-USE seems like a good reason not to use it...
- I am not sure that consulting a textual list is a good idea. Who will spend the hours keeping it updated? Is the benefit worth the trouble? I think searching the RSN archives is better than consulting a list. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: - Thanks for the info about PS being limited to high-visibility sources. Does WP have a larger list of sources that are borderline (but fall short of PS notoriety)? There may be editors that are not using a "borderline source" gadget and want to consult a textual list. The list Wikipedia:TESTING-DONT-USE-unreliable.json posted above by another editor looks very outdated and unofficial. Noleander (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- Is the software that flags the sources advertised an identifying suspect sources or suspect sources that are also perennial? The PS list is "only sources that have been repeatedly raised for discussion are listed here; it is not a general or comprehensive list of all generally reliable or unreliable sources..." -- Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: Thanks for the info. But I can handle the Frontier issue fine. My question is big picture: Many editors come to this list for assistance, but it seems to be missing many suspect sources (such as Frontier Media). Why is this List missing so many suspect sources? Noleander (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- All of the source highlighting scripts use sources beyond just the RSP, and as with other user scripts they're maintained by the user who wrote them. The RSP has inclusion criteria, user scripts inclusion criteria are up to the author of the script. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:07, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The "We've hit PEIS technical limits" template
[edit]The we are working on it in the template links to an archive. Is there something more ongoing that should be linked instead? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Substack for album reviews?
[edit]Apologies if this has been discussed before, as I'm sure it has, but I didn't find anything newer than a discussion from 5 years ago myself. I want to cite Stephen Thomas Erlewine's review of Kid Rock's Halfway 2 Jesus for that album's respective wiki article. It comes from Erlewine's So It Goes newsletter on Substack. I'm aware that Substack consists of self-published content without editorial oversight and so is in most cases unusable; however in this case it's a very notable and respected music critic providing, well, criticism on an album. It's like Robert Christgau's And It Don't Stop essentially. I feel like this is an instance of it being an acceptable source, but I also wanted to gather some other opinions as well. Elephantranges (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- You're looking for the source reliability noticeboard, this page is for discussing improvements to the perennial sources list. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:26, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! Elephantranges (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2026 (UTC)