Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Reliability and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 3 months

The content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check was merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability on 11 January 2019. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Important - Monthly after the bot creates a new Category:

For the new category within All articles lacking reliable references, add (Edit) the following lines.

{{align|center|{{resbox|'''{{large|{{Random page in category}}}}'''}}}}
{{Filter category by topic}}

For the new category within All articles with unsourced statements, add (Edit) the following lines.

{{align|center|{{resbox|'''{{large|{{Random page in category}}}}'''}}}}
{{Filter category by topic}}
*'''Please help improve an article in this category by adding [[WP:REFB|references]] to [[WP:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that [[WP:V|verify]] content within the article. Once the reliable source references have been added, the unsourced (citation needed) tag can be removed.'''

After the category has more than about 50 articles would be the appropriate time to add the above.

ALPH

A novel written by Charles Eric Maine is not included in his written works@ 2601:1C2:100:E9E0:D173:9CB5:2C76:7DB1 (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates § References not notes

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates § References not notes, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon: A new sub-referencing feature – try it!

Hello, we are reaching out to members of this project, because you are experts when it comes to referencing. For many years, community members have requested an easy way to re-use references with different details. Now, a MediaWiki solution is coming: The new sub-referencing feature will work for wikitext and Visual Editor and will enhance the existing reference system. You can continue to use different ways of referencing, but you will probably encounter sub-references in articles written by other users. More information on the project page.

We want your feedback to make sure this feature works well for you:

Please try the current state of development on beta wiki and let us know what you think.
Sign up here to get updates and/or invites to participate in user research activities.

We are aware that enwiki and other projects already use workarounds like {{sfn}} for referencing a source multiple times with different details. The new sub-referencing feature doesn’t change anything about existing approaches to referencing, so you can still use sfn. We have created sub-referencing, because existing workarounds don’t work well with Visual Editor and ReferencePreviews. We are looking forward to your feedback on how our solution compares to your existing methods of re-using references with different details.

Wikimedia Deutschland’s Technical Wishes team is planning to bring this feature to Wikimedia wikis later this year. We will reach out to creators/maintainers of tools and templates related to references beforehand.

Please help us spread the message. --Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to join

How do I add my name to the list of participants? Electrou (formerly Susbush)(talk) 09:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with unsourced statements

Has anyone else noticed how Category:Articles with unsourced statements has had the biggest increase in tags^{[citation needed]} this month compared to any other month previously? This month alone has increased 22,000 to 536,000, which is +4%. Without needing to see the graph, I see the steady increase from ~1% a month last year, to ~2% last month, and now ~4%. This could genuinely be at 8% increase by next month at this pace. Is there any motivation to try and organise another backlog drive? I see above that the previous wasn't that successful, or at least the results were short lived as it were. @Cremastra is it possible to get a graph update? CNC (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNC Some of this may be due to Module:Sports table, which, for reasons unknown, spits out "citation needed" if a cite isn't provided instead of just returning "sorry, you'll need a citation", which would be an infinitely better approach since it would reduce the backlog and make lazy editors actually cite their sources.

</rant>

That aside, yes, a drive may be necessary in February or March, but honestly I'm dubious it'll do much good, seeing as this backlog grows so fast. IMHO it might be best to restrict to just GAs, since those are the highest-priority, and that sub-backlog is big enough. [1] Or with vital articles.

Regardless, to run a drive we'll need people willing to do spot-checking. Looking at the previous drive, I'll also need to clarify the scoring system, since what counts and what doesn't count caused understandable confusion last time. Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 16:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, I'm not convinced a drive would make that much difference at this point, but it's worth a try eventually I guess. I'll also preface that I have added numerous cn tags to BLPs, but in this case, the issue is the quantity of unsourced material in BLP as opposed to tagging unsourced material imo. Naturally if it's contentious or dubious I remove, but usually this isn't the case. I also don't believe there is more unsourced content being added to articles than in previous years, only tagging of unsourced has increased I think, but this is beside of the point.

On this note, it might be worth considering BLPs over other articles as well, given WP:BLPUNSOURCED is a lot more problematic than unsourced elsewhere (usually speaking at least). I just checked petscan and it's 98,000, which is a reasonable chunk. Personally I don't care so much about the other 400K+, that's much less likely to be an issue with libel or otherwise.

Anyway, starting with GAs and seeing how that goes would be a good start and seemingly achievable as a goal. We would need thousands of participants to tackle BLP articles, whereas GAs are realistic at present. CNC (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started something at Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/March 2025 Drive. Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about having BLP as secondary priority? In case we actually complete GA, or otherwise. I'm almost not convinced that vital articles require further attention from a backlog drive, as if they are that important then there should be the editors available to resolve tags. At least that's my interpretation anyway. CNC (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, so is this drive still gonna happen? It's almost March. I'm down to participate if there is one. D-Flo27 (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to there being a drive, and you're welcome to work with the draft I made above, but, to be honest, I have no desire to coordinate this one. Sorry. I've been busy IRL and am taking a semi-break from Wikipedia in any case. Cremastra (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are we delaying the drive? I wanted to sign up, but no one else has joined. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSSELF

I am looking to discuss the wording found in WP:RSSELF and the following passage in particular: whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. I have noticed that editors (including myself, initially) have interpreted this section as inclusive of certain instances of WP:USEBYOTHER, such as instances where a self-published source is merely heavily cited in published academic work (journal articles, books, etc.). These interpretations can be found in conversations 1 and 2 of the WP:RSPSOURCES entry for Catholic-Hierarchy.org. Generally speaking, some editors were arguing that because content from Catholic-Hierarchy.org is heavily cited in published work, it therefore passes WP:RSSELF.

First, it seems that confusion could be due to different interpretations of the word "work", especially given that there are dozens of formal definitions for the word. "Work" and "works" can be used as synonyms to refer to specific discrete intellectual products such as books and articles (and art). However, "work" could probably also be used to refer to forms of intellectual labor that do not appear solely as discrete books and articles. Perhaps a definition of "work" could refer to the collection of an academic's conferences, emails, and thoughts. When we say: "The professor's 'work' transformed the field of Assyriology and opened up new frontiers of understanding", are we solely referring to this professor's books and journal articles? Some people might maintain that interpretation, but others might justifiably expand the interpretation. Thus, ambiguity.

Second, there could also be ambiguity around the words "published" and "publication". I presume that WP:RSSELF is generally referring to instances where an author is "published" by "publications" such as Nature or NYT, and not merely instances where the intellectual labor of an author appears in a "published" "publication". Both academic journals and individual books could be defined as "publications." However, books are "publications" that do not "publish" while academic journals are "publications" that "publish." These are all potentially unnecessary nuances found in WP:RSSELF, resulting in some very heavily lifting being performed by the word "by."

So, could this section from WP:RSSELF be improved? In a different thread, I proposed something like "whose scholarly or journalistic works in the relevant field have previously been published by reliable, independent periodicals or publishing houses." This new wording provides some enhanced emphasis without adding too many new words. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide to be moved to Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Please correct the error in the rhs Chelsea flower show description. You mean FORMERLY not FORMALLY!! 92.26.194.4 (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources/Perennial sources listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Reliable sources/Perennial sources to be moved to Perennial sources list. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Changing the text in {{Unfereneced}} and {{More citations needed}} to better reflect WP:V

I found the following texts on {{Unreferenced}} and {{More citations needed}}:

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Though seemingly coping with the verifiability principles, this description of the editors' task is misleading. It makes no sense to just add citations without immediately altering existing contents that do not align with the sources, and removing those that cannot be supported by any sources. Such an act is especially disruptive if some sourced texts are preceded by some unsourced ones, making the range of texts supported by the cited sources unclear. Therefore, I propose changing that text to:

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources, altering existing content to reflect the descriptions in the sources, and removing any challengeable content not directly supported by a source.

The proposed version highlights the importance of working on existing content in the process of adding more citations and in pursuit of the core content policies. I plan to port this proposal to the Chinese Wikipedia if it passes here, so feel free to criticize and give suggestions to refine this proposal. Cc @自由雨日, YFdyh000, 魔琴, and Rastinition. 1F616EMO (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On hold for a while until I have time to move this thread to the Village Pump and deal with community inputs. 1F616EMO (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify source

I think I might have been duped by a source, taken-in, taken-round-the-block, tricked, etc.

For the pages George Hunter White and Jacques Voignier, I have used as a source the author Hank Albarelli Jr. One of "his" books, A Coup in Dallas, has since been challenged for reliability, and I don't know what to do.

Since I really don't give a damn about JFK theory world, and am only interested in getting the facts right, can someone please investigate whether A Coup in Dallas should be considered reliable or not? It was published after Hank died by his assistant, and they claim to have access to a datebook that apparently has not yet been verified by outside reviewers.

On the one hand, this could make it unreliable, but on the other, this book is rather fluffed with anti-Trump rhetoric, and I wonder if the conspiracy theory crowd are more in the MAGA crowd.

I hate writing about subjects that are so muddied by the conspiracy-theory community, because even though things like Midnight Climax undeniably happened, there are just way too many... tin foil hat wearers... out there, and it's unfortunately easier than you might think to get tricked by a source. I only wrote these guy's pages because I think the other things they did were interesting. Writing about mob-hunters and nazi-hunters is really fun for me.

I would greatly appreciate someone reviewing the articles for their source reliability – there are many, many other sources for White, but Hank is really the only person since the 50's who has written about Voignier in detail, and the only person since the 50's to write a complete profile.

Anyways, the main concern I have is the approach these sources have to the murder of Frank Olson. If these sections I have written about that are suspect, please help me repair them. Guylaen (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guylaen, I think you'll get more feedback at WP:RSN. Alaexis_¿question? 21:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]