Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Instructions

This guide describes the structure of the perennial sources list, and explains how to maintain the list as new discussions appear on the reliable sources noticeboard. Any editor is welcome to update the list using this guide.

Basics and inclusion criteria

The list is structured as a table with multiple templates, split into the following editable subpages (as the result of a 2024 discussion):

• #−A
• B−D
• E−G
• H−L
• M−N
• O−R
• S−T
• U−Z

Most edits to the list require a basic understanding of how to build tables and transclude templates using wikitext. Since the perennial sources list uses table-connected wikitext extensively, it is currently impractical to change a source's status or add a new entry with the VisualEditor. If you normally use the VisualEditor, please switch to "Source editing" mode before editing the list.

A project-level RfC is required for the following:

• Any source that is proposed for deprecation (see also the list of deprecated sources);

RfCs should be registered at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard using {{rfc|prop}}.

Templates

Several templates are used throughout the list. Some of these templates are located on subpages of the list, and they should be transcluded into the list in all-caps and prefixed with WP:RSP as a shortcut (which automatically updates when the templates are moved).

Shortcut	Template	Description
{{WP:RSPLAST}}	Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Last	"Last" discussion table cell
{{WP:RSPSHORTCUT}}	Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Shortcut	Shortcut box
{{WP:RSPSTATUS}}	Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Status	"Status" table cell
{{{WP:RSPUSES}}	Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Uses	"Uses" table cell
{{rsnl}}	Template:RSN link	Link to a discussion or request for comment at the reliable sources noticeboard or its archives. Substitute if no icon-generation (i.e. not an RfC) or marking as active is needed; this is to prevent the amount of templated wikitext from exceeding its post-expand limit.
{{sbll}}	Template:SBL link	Link to a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist or its archives

The list uses a CSS style sheet located at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/styles.css.

Examples

Simple

|- class="s-nc" id="Example_Source"
| [[Example Source]]
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|nc}}
| {{subst:rsnl|100|Reliable sources noticeboard discussion title|1}} {{subst:rsnl|200|Second discussion|2}}
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2015}}
| Description of source and summary of past discussions.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|example.com|example.net}}

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
Example Source		1 2	2015	Description of source and summary of past discussions.	1   2

Advanced

<section begin="deprecated"/>
|- class="s-b" id="Blacklisted_Source"
| ''[[WP:Example|Blacklisted Source]]'' {{small|(''Nickname'', [[WP:Example|Also-deprecated BS-run source]])}} {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:BS}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gu|b=y}}
| {{sbll|January 2017|Blacklisted Source|2017}} {{rsnl|100|RfC: Blacklisted Source|2020|rfc=y}}
+8{{efn|See also these discussions of ''Blacklisted Source'':
{{subst:rsnl|1|Discussion 1|1}}
{{subst:rsnl|2|Discussion 2|2}}
{{subst:rsnl|10|Discussion 3|3}}
{{subst:rsnl|11|Discussion 4|4}}
{{subst:rsnl|12|Discussion 5|5}}
{{rsnl|20|Discussion 6|6|active=y}}
[[Talk:Example Source#Discussion A|A]]
''[[Wikipedia:Example#Discussion B|B]]''
}}
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2020|inprogress=y}}
| Description of source and summary of past discussions. 
| {{WP:RSPUSES|example.com|example.net|example.org|example.info}}
<section end="deprecated"/>

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
Blacklisted Source (Nickname, Also-deprecated BS-run source) WP:BS 📌		2017  2020 +8	2020	Description of source and summary of past discussions.	1   2   3   4

Notes

Columns

Source

The "Source" column of the table displays up to four items:

1. Name: The name of the source, linked to the corresponding article. Italicize the name if the article does the same.
   • Sources that do not have a corresponding article or redirect should generally be excluded from the list.
2. Aspects: (optional) When there are multiple entries covering different aspects of the same source, list the aspects inside parentheses after the name. Examples of aspects include:
   • Media on which a source is published (e.g. website, print)
   • Topics covered by the source (e.g. politics, science)
   • Authors published in the source (e.g. staff, contributors)
3. Aliases: (optional) If the source is also referred to by at least one alias, list the prominent aliases within parentheses inside a {{small}} template. Aliases can include:
   • Commonly used abbreviations
   • Nicknames, former names, and alternative names
   • Names of closely associated publications and companies (including parent companies and subsidiaries)
4. Shortcut: (optional) A shortcut to the list entry, displayed with the {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT}} template

Status

The status of a source is indicated in two ways:

1. The table row uses a CSS class value that displays a background color.
2. The {{WP:RSPSTATUS}} template is passed a parameter, which shows an icon in the "Status" column.

If deprecated, a source's listing should additionally be surrounded in the "deprecated" labeled section for ease of selective transclusion to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources § Currently deprecated sources. See § Advanced for an example.

Status	Row class value	{{WP:RSPSTATUS}} value	Background color	Icon
Generally reliable	s-gr	gr
No consensus	s-nc	nc
Generally unreliable	s-gu	gu
Deprecated	s-d	d
Blacklisted	s-b	One of the above		and one of the above

To represent a blacklisted source in the "Status" column, set the {{WP:RSPSTATUS}} template's b parameter to y. The b parameter is independent from the template's value. For example, a blacklisted generally unreliable source is indicated with {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gu|b=y}}, while a blacklisted deprecated source is indicated with {{WP:RSPSTATUS|d|b=y}}. A blacklisted source has a gray background color, and shows both the "X" icon and the icon corresponding to the source's reliability.

A source's status should be consistent with its summary of discussions.

List of discussions

The discussions in the "List" column determine the contents of the source's summary and the value of the source's status.

Ordering discussions

Discussions on the source are linked from the "List" column in the following order:

1. Major discussions: List major discussions in chronological order.
   • Uninterrupted requests for comment on the reliable sources noticeboard and its archives
     • Use {{rsnl}} to link to these RfCs. Set the rfc parameter to y, and the link text to the year on which the RfC was closed. Set the active parameter to y if the RfC is active. For example:
       • An RfC located in archive 1 of the noticeboard that was titled "Example discussion" and closed in 2007 would be represented with {{rsnl|1|Example discussion|2007}}.
       • An active RfC titled "Example discussion" in the year 2024 would be represented with {{rsnl||Example discussion|2024|rfc=y|active=y}}.
     • Interrupted RfCs (i.e. RfCs that were withdrawn or closed as invalid) are not considered major discussions, but they can still be linked as ordinary noticeboard discussions.
     • RfCs held in other locations are not considered major discussions, but they can still be linked as ordinary non-noticeboard discussions.
   • Successful blacklisting discussions
     • Use {{sbll}} to link to successful blacklisting discussions held at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist or its archives. Set the link text to the year on which the source was blacklisted. For example:
       • A discussion titled "Example discussion" located in the October 2007 archive of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist would be represented with {{sbll|October 2007|Example discussion|2007}}.
     • Unsuccessful blacklisting discussions are not considered major discussions, but they can still be linked as ordinary discussions.
2. Ordinary noticeboard discussions: List discussions located on the reliable sources noticeboard or its archives in chronological order.
   • Use {{subst:rsnl}} to link to these discussions. Set the link text to the discussion's cardinal numeral, and set the active parameter to y while disabling substitution if the discussion is active. For example:
     • A discussion located in archive 1 of the noticeboard that was titled "Example discussion" and is the second ordinary noticeboard discussion in the list would be represented with {{subst:rsnl|1|Example discussion|2}}.
     • An active discussion titled "Example discussion" that is the third ordinary noticeboard discussion in the list would be represented with {{rsnl|Example discussion|3}}.
   • Discussions outside of the reliable sources noticeboard are not listed here, but they can still be listed as ordinary non-noticeboard discussions.
3. Ordinary non-noticeboard discussions List essential discussions located outside of the reliable sources noticeboard and its archives in chronological order.
   • Use a section link for these discussions. Set the link text to the letter of the alphabet that corresponds to the discussion's cardinal numeral. Italicize the link if the discussion is active. For example:
     • A discussion titled "Example discussion" located on Talk:Example that is the first ordinary non-noticeboard discussion in the list would be represented with [[Talk:Example#Example discussion|A]].
     • An active discussion titled "Example discussion" located on Talk:Example that is the second ordinary noticeboard discussion in the list would be represented with ''[[Talk:Example#Example discussion|B]]''.
   • Keep discussions in this category to a minimum.

Do not link to a discussion more than once in the same source entry.

Condensing discussions

When there are 4 or more rows of discussions listed in a "Status" table cell, use {{efn}} to condense the ordinary discussions into an explanatory footnote. In front of the footnote marker, indicate the total number of discussions linked in the footnote.

• If the entry lists at least one major discussion:
  • Condense the ordinary discussions if all of the discussions take up 4 or more rows, and the ordinary discussions take up 2 or more rows.
    • 1 major discussion: Condense the ordinary discussions when there are at least 11 of them.
    • 2 or more major discussions: Condense the ordinary discussions when there are at least 6 of them, or if there are both noticeboard and non-noticeboard discussions.
  • Add a plus sign (+) in front of the discussion count.
  • The footnote text should begin with See also these discussions of Example:, with Example being replaced with the source's name.
• If the entry does not list any major discussions:
  • Condense the ordinary discussions if there are at least 14 of them.
  • The footnote text should begin with See these discussions of Example:, with Example being replaced with the source's name.

Last discussion

In the "Last" column, use {{WP:RSPLAST}} to specify the year of the last comment in the most recent discussion listed in the "Status" column. If the discussion is currently active, set the inprogress parameter to y. For example:

• If the most recent discussion of source ended in 2006, use {{WP:RSPLAST|2006}}.
• If the source has an active discussion in year 2024, use {{WP:RSPLAST|2024|inprogress=y}}.

Summary of discussions

The "Summary" column describes the consensus within all non-active discussions indexed in the list of discussions. The amount of weight assigned to each discussion depends on the following:

• Uninterrupted requests for comment on the reliable sources noticeboard: Uninterrupted RfCs on the noticeboard take precedence over all other discussions.
  • If there is a conflict between an uninterrupted noticeboard RfC and an ordinary discussion, use the result of the RfC in the summary for the conflicting matter.
  • RfCs held in other locations are not prioritized in this way.
• Age: Newer discussions are weighted more highly than older discussions.
  • If there is a conflict between an older noticeboard RfC and a newer uninterrupted noticeboard RfC, use the result of the newer RfC in the summary for the conflicting matter.
  • If there is a conflict between an older ordinary discussion and a newer ordinary discussion, consider both, but weight the newer discussion more highly.
• Depth: Discussions that examine the reliability of the source in greater detail are weighted more highly than discussions that examine reliability in less detail.
• Participation: Discussions with more participants are weighted more highly than discussions with fewer participants.

The summary of the source should explain the following:

• Reliability: State whether there is consensus that the source is generally reliable, generally unreliable, or deprecated.
  • If there is no consensus, use neutral wording (e.g. "no consensus on the reliability of Source" instead of "no consensus that Source is reliable").
  • If the classification only applies to certain topic areas, or if different classifications apply to different topic areas, make this clear in the summary.
• Blacklist: If the source is on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, mention this.
• Bias: If there is consensus that the source is biased or opinionated, mention this.
  • Recommend in-text attribution if editors in past discussions do the same.
• Self-published sources and user-generated content: If the source is self-published or contains user-generated content, mention this.
  • Clarify which sections of the source are affected, if this only applies to part of the source.

The summary may include other guidance on how to appropriately use the source, as long as the information is derived from non-active discussions in the list of discussions.

Qualify the strength of statements in the summary. For example, the phrases "most editors", "some editors", and "a few editors" can be used to communicate a statement's level of support.

Uses

Apply the {{WP:RSPUSES}} template in the "Uses" column to list the official domain names used by the source for publication. If a source does not have a domain name, use an em dash (—) to indicate this.

Patrolling the noticeboard

To keep the list up-to-date, volunteers patrol the reliable sources noticeboard on a regular basis. As new discussions are started and old discussions are archived, the list should reflect the most current information.

• New discussion: When an editor creates a new discussion about a source on the noticeboard, record the discussion if there is already an entry for the source.
  • Add the new discussion to the entry's list of discussions with the active parameter set to y.
  • In the "Last" column, update the last discussion year to the current year, and set the inprogress parameter to y.
• Archived discussion: Lowercase sigmabot III archives noticeboard discussions that receive no replies within five days. Discussions that are tracked in an entry should be updated accordingly.
  • If the archived discussion does not have enough participation to meet the inclusion criteria, remove the discussion from the entry's list of discussions.
  • Otherwise, update the RSN link to target the archive page instead of the main noticeboard; when the outcome of the discussion has been determined (e.g. when it is closed), remove the active parameter.
  • If there are no remaining active discussions, remove the inprogress parameter from the "Last" column.

Noticeboard maintenance

The reliable sources noticeboard should be regularly checked to ensure that everything is running smoothly.

• Requests for comment
  • Section headings should be prefixed with "RfC:" if and only if the section contains a request for comment that was initiated with the {{rfc}} tag.
  • To track the status of RfCs and prevent automated archiving, RfCs should be tagged with {{subst:rsnr}} before the {{rfc}} tag.
    • If another editor started an RfC without applying the {{subst:rsnr}} template, use the timestamp of the RfC statement (from the first signature after the {{rfc}} tag) as the first parameter, i.e. {{subst:rsnr|00:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)}}.
  • If an active RfC is prematurely archived, restore the section to its original position on the noticeboard and delete it from the archive. Also restore the {{rfc}} tag, if it was automatically removed by Legobot while the RfC was archived. Apply the {{subst:rsnr}} template before the {{rfc}} tag to prevent another premature archival.
    • This should never happen unless the {{subst:rsnr}} template was omitted in the first place.
  • Elapsed RfCs should be listed on the requests for closure noticeboard after they are automatically archived.
  • You may close RfCs if you are an uninvolved experienced editor. Also consider closing other discussions on the requests for closure noticeboard to reduce the backlog.
• Discussions
  • Discussions that primarily focus on the analysis of previous noticeboard discussions should be moved to the talk page of the perennial sources list (WT:RSP). Conversely, discussions on WT:RSP that primarily focus on new information not found in previous noticeboard discussions should be moved to the noticeboard.
  • No heading of any section or subsection of the noticeboard should duplicate an existing heading. If there are two sections with the same heading, disambiguate them. For example, if two different RfCs have "Survey" and "Discussion" sections, use parentheses, i.e. "Survey (Source Name)".
• Blacklisted links
  • If a noticeboard discussion contains an external link to a domain that has been added to the spam blacklist or global spam blacklist, wrap the link in <nowiki> and </nowiki> tags to disable it.
  • Lowercase sigmabot III fails to archive discussions when any of them contain a blacklisted link.

Deprecating a source

Deprecating a source involves several steps:

1. Close the RfC with a closing statement indicating that there is consensus to deprecate the source. If there is consensus in the discussion to specifically refrain from one of the standard deprecation measures (auto-revert or edit filter), note this in the closing statement and skip the associated step.
2. Auto-revert: Create a discussion for the source under User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList § Proposed additions. Use SBHandler to add the domains associated with the source to User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList.
3. Edit filter: Add the domain to Special:AbuseFilter/869 in line 3, which starts with deprecated =:. This requires the edit filter manager permission, which administrators can assign to themselves.
4. Create or update the entry for the source in:
   • perennial sources list
   • the "Deprecated" list in the section User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg/General § RSP.

See also

• Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (WT:RSP) – Feel free to ask for help on the talk page if you get stuck.