Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sticky header user interface community input

[edit]

There has been an initiative to change the interface so that the gray header at the top of the table "follows around" as you scroll down. See: {{sticky header}}. Which of the choices below (A-E) do you prefer? What other ideas do you have?

The header is now 2 lines tall. What Timeshifter is now proposing (scroll down this example) is a narrow one-line sticky header with a link from the "Status" column head back to the "Legend" section of the article. And a link from the "Sources" column head back to the "Sources" section of the article. Notes explain this just above the table. He states this allows new users of the table to quickly return to the table TOC, or to quickly find the meaning of the legend icons. There are also improved notes above the table.

An issue in any skin other than the default Vector 2022: When you use the horizontal table TOC, or if you follow ("jump to") an anchored link within the table such as WP:FORBESCON, the top line of the note in the row you jump to would be covered by the narrow sticky header. 2 lines are covered by the 2-line header. Template discussions have not found a way to fix this. Timeshifter does not believe this is a serious problem. Others do. One solution (see E below) is to add a line's worth of blank padding at the top of each row.

  • A: No sticky header, same style (2-line) header as before.
  • B: Full size (2-line) header with sticky enabled.
  • C: Narrow (1-line) header without sticky enabled.
  • D: Narrow header with sticky header that follows you around. This has been improved. Please check again.
  • E: Same as D, but with padding at the top of each row.

Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC). Edited per WP:RFCNEUTRAL by Timeshifter (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Another shortcut (for Forbes.com contributors) with the improved narrow-header version of the sticky table:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&oldid=1260153539#Forbes.com_contributors
The benefits of having the sticky header far outweigh the small inconvenience for the relatively few people using Vector 2010 of having to scroll up a tiny bit to see one line of missing text at the top of the notes column. They can see everything else in the Forbes.com row.
By the way, your history is off. The {{sticky header}} was up without complaints for over 2 months (since Aug 21, 2024) after I changed from {{sticky table start}} and did my final tweak. See Aug 21, 2024 version.
Recently, there were changes by the template editor that messed up the colors, but those have been fixed.
--Timeshifter (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This template is used on approximately 4,400 pages" sums up the use of the sticky banner. How does it look on mobile? Why reinvent the wheel here when the people shifting through the table know what the columns represent. Also, it's a Wikipedia namespace, not an article. Do whatever you want, I guess. – The Grid (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, C, D, B in decreasing order of preference, unless something can be done to prevent the overlapping of the header and the cell content (which might be fixable with a bit of cell padding at the top of the cells, at the cost of making the entire page visually longer; there might also be a JS way to fix this, by forcing a slight scroll-up after page load if a #Section link is in the URL). The overlap interfering with utility for everyone is not surpassed by the sticky header provding some utility to a minority of new editors at the page who aren't sure what the columns are. Especially given that it's pretty obvious what they are, and nearly no one needs most of them anyway, only Source and Summary. If the sticky header were imposed, then use the more concise version; the bigger one isn't actually any more helpful as a sticky. But if sticky is not imposed, maybe keep the more explanatory version, which provides a hint of organizational/thematic clarity as a top-of-table header that appears once. If not sticky, also put the header at the bottom of the table, so someone who doesn't remember what the columns are but is nearer bottom of page can scroll there to find out instead of all the way back to the top.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cell padding at the top of each row would work.
A JS and/or CSS solution would be better. Any ideas how? That's beyond my level of skill.
I set up (and immediately reverted) a sticky narrow header with the "Sources" column head linking to the Sources heading. The "Status" column head links to the Legend heading. I substituted that version link for "D" above. Click it to see the changes.
This makes the sticky header much more useful. It allows one to instantly go to the legend section. New people are going to be confused by the legend symbols, and will want a rapid way to get back to that section. Especially important in Vector 2010 where the TOC doesn't follow you around.
The Sources column head link takes one instantly back to the horizontal table of contents from anywhere in the table without tedious scrolling. So one can choose another letter.
A header at the bottom of a long table is not as useful as a sticky header. It takes a long time to scroll from the middle of this long table to the bottom of the table.
I added a couple notes just above the table. See sticky narrow header with notes here.
--Timeshifter (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still causes the first line to be missing. Graywalls (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A if editors want the benefit of a sticky header, they should enable that preference in the gadgets section of their preferences page. On this particular page, the benefit (if any), is minimal at best. When I use RSP, I know what source I am searching for and am basically looking for the color of the source and the discussion. I also use ctrl+f to quickly find what I am looking for sometimes. I was pleased when it was changed back to the status-quo. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-logged-in editors don't have that gadgets option.
So you have the meaning of the legend icons memorized? Good for you. But non-regular users of this page do not. The "status" column head link takes them to the Legend section. That link is handy because the sticky header follows the reader as they scroll down the table. Is it not useful to users who don't have the legend icon meanings memorized? --Timeshifter (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A all the way. It simply works. Graywalls (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D, E, C in decreasing order of preference. Benefits, especially for new or infrequent readers of this page, outweigh the tiny problem of one line of notes being covered in secondary skins. People know how to scroll up to see it. Vector 2022, the default skin, does not have the problem. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. The narrow benefit does not outweigh the narrow detriment of the scrolling issue, and the narrowed header is simply awful: the new "title" of the table is completely incomprehensible (until explained that it's supposed to be a stand-in for the bigger column headers, which, I'm sorry, what‽ Nobody who doesn't already understand the table will understand that.), and I find the appropriation of columns as navigation links incredibly weird and against how wikilinks usually behave (This point would be solved by turning them into, idk, tiny arrows that are linked instead of the header name, but you still have my other point.).
    Regarding Timeshifter's response to Isaid, I asked a family member of mine what each column meant without giving him the row headers. He identified every column except the year-last-discussed correctly (though he only identified the uses column after hovering over a link). The status icons tell you what they mean when you hover over them; heck, clicking on them already takes you to the appropriate paragraph under the legend section. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aaron Liu for running the tests. So your family member who was new to the table could not identify what 2 of the 6 columns were about when looking at the table somewhere below the column headers. So the family member had no benefit of seeing the column header. For example, someone following a link like this: WP:FORBESCON. I added {{tooltip}} to the column heads just now. See diff. Maybe someday when the {{sticky header}} template is made to work correctly with the old Wikipedia skins (like Vector 2010), it can be added back. And we could use 2 header rows then for better clarity. And the sticky header will be of more use to someone like your family member now that {{tooltip}} info has been added to the 2 confusing columns. The header, being sticky, will be right there to help out.
By the way, the current header has an internal link in the column head (the "legend" link). I didn't add that. I see internal links regularly in Wikipedia articles and tables.
I made some improvements to the one-line sticky header example. I expanded and clarified the table caption. I also added some notes above the table. See this version of the table section. It's even more improved here:

Note. Click Sources column head to come back here. Click Status column head to go to the Legend section above. Click on any status column icon to go to its explanation above.

Perennial sources. Current status. Discussion links (with latest by year). Uses in Wikipedia articles.
Sources Status List Last Summary Use
ABC News (United States) Generally reliable 1 2

2021

There is consensus that ABC News, the news division of the American Broadcasting Company, is generally reliable. It is not to be confused with other publications of the same name. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links

--Timeshifter (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find the "(legend)" link much offbeat because it clearly describes where it targets with its simple appearance. Meanwhile, linking "Sources" and "Status" this way runs against the paradigm/pattern of links going where their contents suggest. Same thing with the misappropriation of the table's name.
Also, just to clarify, my family member realized what the "use" column meant after he hovered over one of its links to see where it goes. I'd also suggest you use your sandbox instead of the RSP page to generate revisions to link to. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a sandbox, but many of the links are on the URL blacklist. So that did not work. The "Sources" and "Status" links do go to where their contents suggest. I am sure your family member would have no problem figuring it out. Plus they are explained in a note at the top of the table. The table name is not misappropriated at all. In fact, it is good practice to move info out of the column headers and into the table caption. In order to make column headers less tall. Especially with sticky tables. Helps especially on cell phones. Look it up on the table help pages. And in the sticky header template docs. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I did with my sandbox while experimenting with implementing the tranclusion plan is transclude parts of the RSP list. That worked pretty well as far as I can tell.
"Status" linked suggests going to a page that documents what statuses are, and I can perhaps accept that one; however, "Sources" linked suggests going to a page that documents what sources are. Like I said, using those links in a situation where you link to Wikipedia articles is quite confusing.

Look it up on the table help pages. And in the sticky header template docs.

Well, you only added that to TM:Sticky header/doc in March and to Help:Table in September yourself this year. I see no evidence that the community at large accepts or understands such usage of the table caption, nor that it is accessible to screenreaders. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Table captions are required for screen readers. It's a MOS guideline too: WP:HEADERS. For many years now. Many people ignore the requirement. Many are clueless about the need or the requirement. Blind people want more detail in captions, not less. Putting more stuff in table captions is mentioned (for various reasons) in multiple table help pages. One of your links is actually an edit by the other main sticky table editor.
It takes only one use of the "Sources" link to figure out what is going on. People are creatures of habit. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for misinterpreting the first diff link I posted. But 1. I was asking how screenreaders would interpret a table header in a table caption 2. I disagree with your interpretation of @Jroberson108's edit as "describe all the separate parts of the parent table headers". Even if it were correct, this kind of table caption is useless because it does not describe which table headers are associated with which parts of the caption. According to Headers which references its linked ArticleTitles, table captions should describe the table, not the table headers. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following some of what you are saying. On your user page I notice that English is not your native language. The table caption in the example above describes what is in the table: "Perennial sources. Current status. Discussion links (with latest by year). Uses in Wikipedia articles." --Timeshifter (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that's what it's supposed to describe. I don't see how anyone is supposed to realize that "Uses in Wikipedia articles", the fourth phrase in the caption, is supposed to be a description for the sixth column at first glance. Why do we even need to add those to the caption, whose usual use mandated by ArticleTitles is to describe the entire table and not just duplicate descriptions of column headers that can be accessibly, semantically, and straightforwardly-interpretedly added with {{tooltip}}? Is there any consensus besides just you to use captions to describe table headers? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged. Too much to read, but there seems to be some questions around table caption and screen readers. See w3.org: A caption functions like a heading for a table. Most screen readers announce the content of captions. Captions help users to find a table and understand what it’s about and decide if they want to read it. If the user uses “Tables Mode”, captions are the primary mechanism to identify tables. Also further down: The caption should be a short heading for the table content. A caption of "Perennial sources" or "List of perennial sources" should sufficiently describe the table. If there is another list, then differentiate them further in the caption (ex. Allowed list ... vs. Disallowed list ...). If they opt to read the table's content, then the column and/or row headers will help describe the data further. Jroberson108 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Jroberson108. The question is about the table caption as posted here. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Liu. "Uses in Wikipedia articles" in the caption tells a reader that is in the table. A caption does not tell readers where something is in the table. It just tells them it is in the table. It is in this table caption also because mobile users can't hover and read the {{tooltip}} note for "Uses" in the column headers. Same is true for "Discussion links (with latest by year)" in the caption. Mobile users can't read the {{tooltip}} note for "Last". I added those {{tooltip}} notes because your family member couldn't immediately identify those 2 columns when he/she was placed in them away from the headers. With the sticky header the family member is never away from the header.
The info could have been put in the notes above the table. But it is better in the caption because then it also helps people using screen readers. Serves a dual purpose: Describes the table better, and helps people using screen readers. Then the screen reader users have more info to decide whether to investigate the table further or not. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The caption is not just for describing parts or columns that are in the table; it's for describing the entire table as a whole. The answer to mobile devices not being able to view tooltips is to start engineering tooltips to display on mobile, not misuse the table's accessible description: Who wouldn't be confused if their screenreader, asked to describe a table, gives them a seemingly random jumble of phrases? This absolutely does not help. Screenreaders are better served with the tooltips so that screenreaders know that information belongs to a specific column, not the entire table. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take the tooltip on mobile problem to Phabricator. They are probably already working on it. They could probably use your help.

As to table captions you are one of the few people I have heard from who has complained about a table caption being too informative. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it's specific to enwiki wikitext, it's something I should prototype in the tm:tooltip/sandbox in the near future, not report to the WMF-wide phab.
You have yet to demonstrate that anyone besides you likes table captions "being too informative" in this manner. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too informative.
I see: Template:Tooltip and mw:Extension:SimpleTooltip and mw:Extension:RegularTooltips. And more in the "See also" sections of those MediaWiki pages.
Phabricator search for "tooltip". And "mobile tooltip".
--Timeshifter (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was using your own words. Please demonstrate that another extended-confirmed editor agrees with your style of captions.
You’ll notice that none of the Phabricator “mobile tooltip” search results deal with what we’re talking about, thus proving my point. And those extensions have nothing to do with the HTML tags we’re talking about. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many table captions as long as the one in the above example.
I don't claim to have any knowledge about getting tooltips to work on mobile. I just linked to places that might be useful. You might contact some of the people involved in other aspects of tooltips in order to work together on mobile tooltips of whatever flavor you all decide to try. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was never the length I was objecting to. It’s the usage of it to describe column headers instead of the entire table. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am glad you are not objecting to the length of the table caption. And as I said, the more detailed table caption serves multiple purposes: It allows for less-tall headers which is important for sticky headers in cell phones. It describes what is in the table. The info in the columns is part of the table. It helps those on mobile who can't read tooltips to have some inkling of what is covered by the column heads. It helps screen reader users to see more clearly what the table covers without having to dig down into the table. Which they greatly appreciate. Especially when the screen reader is in table mode, which allows them to skip from table caption to table caption. See:

There are multiple methods listed there, but as far as I have seen, only table captions are used on Wikipedia. "Approach 1" in the article looks interesting now that you have said that you do not object to longer captions. It is basically an expanded caption. I have no objection to it. I have been working here lately: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox279. Here is a possibility:

Note. Click Sources column head to come back here. Click Status column head to go to the Legend section above. Click on any status column icon to go to its explanation above.

Perennial sources. Current reliability status. Links to discussions.
The "List" column links to discussions. "Last" is last year discussed. "Use" shows use in articles.
Sources Status List Last Summary Use
ABC News (United States) Generally reliable 1 2

2021

There is consensus that ABC News, the news division of the American Broadcasting Company, is generally reliable. It is not to be confused with other publications of the same name. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links

--Timeshifter (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to respond further if you don’t show that there is consensus for table captions like this. (And the summary example you linked is inside a longer summary element, not the caption element. I said the problem I had with the caption was far more fundamental than length, not that I don’t object to length per MOS:Caption.) Aaron Liu (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Help:Table#Captions and summaries. Its summary info is out of date though, and is obsolete in HTML5. That may be why I can't remember ever seeing it used:
{| summary="Summary text here."
The w3.org WAI summary example I linked is part of the caption element. From "Approach 1":
"The element acts as a heading of the table and provides the summary that describes the composition of the table as well. If implemented this way, the summary is available to visual users as well."
I have occasionally seen tables with captions extending to 2 lines.
There is no rule against it. And it appears that w3.org Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) endorses it for some tables. So that is consensus outside Wikipedia. And Wikipedia tries to meet accessibility standards. WAI is the main accessibility organization. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does WAI endorse non-summary captions that only describe a table header, or separated by periods?
Also, I think the |summary= parameter is a MediaWiki issue that should be fixed in MediaWiki to be HTML5-compliant, not by modifying wikitext. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki doesn't decide HTML5 standards. summary= is part of HTLM4, not HTML5.

And as I have repeated several times, the single-line caption I provided describes the content of the table: "Perennial sources. Current status. Discussion links (with latest by year). Uses in Wikipedia articles."

The multi-line expanded caption is a method I did not know about before: "Approach 1" in here:

There are many table captions on Wikipedia with periods within the caption. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tables in Wikitext are part of Wikitext, not HTML. The parser chooses how to render the Wikitext into HTML, and there is discussion about making it render the summary element instead. There’s no reason why the summary parameter can’t be rendered into HTML5.
I have also repeatedly told you that I object to this caption because I object to captions that only describe column headers instead of the entire table as a whole, and you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate that there is consensus for this. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
phab:T43917 is going nowhere. <summary> </summary> is not part of HTML5 as concerns tables. It is not mentioned here:
Caption & Summary, in Tables Tutorial. Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).
The single-line caption here describes what is in the table. It does not describe the column headers specifically.
On the other hand, the 2-line caption in the above example (as recommended by the WAI link in Approach 1) explicitly describes some of the column headers.
I edit a lot of tables. It is common in captions to provide, in addition to the general table description, some more specific details. Such as: "Rate is per 100,000 of all ages." That is very specific to the rate columns. This is done to prevent bloated headers. It is common.
You can repeat your preference forever, but it doesn't change the facts about existing table captions. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Academia.edu?

[edit]

An article on this website was just cited as a source for text added to American Craftsman. Despite the ".edu", this seems to be just a website, of dubious reliability. Does anyone know more? WCCasey (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed on the main page under Academic repositories. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Reliability of sources

[edit]

There's a very important discussion on this topic, which may also be of interest here. If possible, it would be nice to move the discussion here. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FoxNews

[edit]

Considering the outcome of the recent election(s), and the previous polling reports, is it encyclopaedic to consider Fox News "not reliable" while other similar outlets like NBC and ABC are considered reliable? Seems quite suspicious how in the 2024 United States presidential election the sites used to report results consistently under-polled the winner of the election, while the one site who did the same thing less, is considered unreliable to be used there. 81.196.30.197 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A single instance of them being right isn't going to swing against their general unreliability. Even a broken clock is correct twice per day... Captainllama (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

45cat.com

[edit]

I've recently come across this site being used as a reference. However, looking at it's guide, it appears to be user generated content, and thus very likely not a reliable source. I had a look at the external links search for it, and there are 1700+ links to it across the project. Before embarking on removing all these links, I wanted to see what other people thought. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page for discussing improvements to the perennial source list, you're looking for WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like discogs.com, it's permitted in "External links", which might account for some, or even most, of those 1700+. I tend to use it since, like discogs, it often has label images, which tend to speak for themselves. See you at the noticeboard. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments needed to the transclusion splitting plan

[edit]

I was implementing Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 10#Tranclusion split partition scheme when I ran into a few issues:

  1. Transcluding the final eighth of the sources overruns the mw:Manual:Template limits#Post-expand include size, and even just the first 7/8 plus what's already transcluded on RSP ovverruns the limit.
    • i.e. the list of sources is too large to be trasncluded onto RSP.
  2. The page's edit notice needs to be adapted and displayed on the subpages.

Problem #1 may be solved by moving the list of sources onto a separate page and substituting the last two sections there. (As shown in User:Aaron Liu/sandbox, only substituting the last section is not enough.) Problem #2 may be solved by making the source list its own series of subpages by e.g. moving everything else under WP:Reliable sources/Perennial. Alternatively, Problem #1 may be solved by bumping $wgMaxArticleSize (the max post-expand include size), but that may be refused for security reasons. What do we think? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging: . We really should've seen this coming as the limit was also evident at User:Ivanvector/RSP split proposal. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't have an informed opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is useful to sort, what if you cut the table in half horizontally and linked to the other piece? That would be a large change though. Apenguinlover<talk>() 20:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My experience news that this wouldn't help the post expand limit, but I'm not very knowledgeable in such technicalities and so thought I must be wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it definitely would help but would render the table quite inaccessible/clumsy. I’ve recently been researching maybe substituting all iconless discussion links. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
idea:
112 Ukraine
data-sort-value=2|Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019 Spam blacklist request 2020 Request for comment 2020

1

A B
data-sort-value=2020|

2020

112 Ukraine was deprecated following a 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus for the deprecation of a slew of sources associated with Russian disinformation in Ukraine. It was pointed out later in a 2020 RfC that 112 Ukraine had not been explicitly discussed in that first discussion prior to its blacklisting request. Further discussion established a rough consensus that the source is generally unreliable, but did not form a consensus for deprecation or blacklisting. The prior blacklisting was reversed as out of process. 112 Ukraine closed in 2021.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Special:ExpandTemplates on this row with the tables stuff removed:
[[112 Ukraine]]
:data-sort-value=2|[[File:Argentina - NO symbol.svg|20px|Generally unreliable|link=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Generally unreliable]]
:[[File:Treffpunkt.svg|20px|Request for comment|link=]]&nbsp;[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#RfC:_Deprecation_of_fake_news_/_disinformation_sites.|2019]] [[File:X-circle.svg|20px|alt=Spam blacklist request|link=]]&nbsp;[[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2020#State_sponsored_fake_news|2020]] [[File:Treffpunkt.svg|20px|Request for comment|link=]]&nbsp;[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#112.ua|2020]]
:[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#news-front.info|1]]
:<br />[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016)|A]] [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 4#112 Ukraine|B]]
:data-sort-value=2020|
:2020
:112 Ukraine was deprecated following a 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus for the deprecation of a slew of sources associated with Russian disinformation in Ukraine. It was pointed out later in a 2020 RfC that 112 Ukraine had not been explicitly discussed in that first discussion prior to its blacklisting request. Further discussion established a rough consensus that the source is generally unreliable, but did not form a consensus for deprecation or blacklisting. The prior blacklisting was reversed as out of process. 112 Ukraine closed in 2021.
:[[Special:Search/insource:"112.ua"|1]]&nbsp;[[File:Ic lock outline 48px.svg|16px|HTTPS links|link=Special:Linksearch/https://*.112.ua|class=skin-invert]]&nbsp;[[File:OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg|16px|HTTP links|link=Special:Linksearch/*.112.ua|class=skin-invert]]<br>[[Special:Search/insource:"112.international"|2]]&nbsp;[[File:Ic lock outline 48px.svg|16px|HTTPS links|link=Special:Linksearch/https://*.112.international|class=skin-invert]]&nbsp;[[File:OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg|16px|HTTP links|link=Special:Linksearch/*.112.international|class=skin-invert]]
We could nominate some wikitext on WikitextForDeletion, or we could do what Aaron suggested Apenguinlover<talk>() 11:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Wikitext for deletion”? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikitext for deletion part is a joke. I just mean that this can help expose what parts could be trimmed Apenguinlover<talk>() 16:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&oldid=1261222389"