Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

RSP collapsed

Hey, all:

We've hit the WP:PEIS technical limits at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and this time, there doesn't seem to be any easy way to claw back a little breathing room. We saw this problem coming, and we're working on it. If you need to read the end of the page, try going directly to a sub-page (e.g., Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/8).

We've identified a couple of approaches to fixing the problem, but we'll likely have some questions about your preferences. Some solutions will be similar to what we have now and keep RSP working for (I estimate) about three years. Other solutions will look very different, but we'll never have this problem again. Please keep an eye out for a quick RFC soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

As a follow-up: until some resolution is implemented following the RFC, please do not add new rows to the table subpages 1 through 8, as it may break the main table, as has already happened several times recently. Instead, please add new table rows to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/X for the time being. You are still welcome to modify existing table rows by adding new discussion and Rfc links, marking staleness, expanding the Summary, and so on. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Update: The RFC has started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Restructuring RSP. This is likely to affect all the experienced editors here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Update: The RfC closed with a clear consensus for RSP to become a list of subpages. Interested editors should check at the RfC to see how that is coming along. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

A list of fake sources

Per Cite Unseen suggestion: Similar to how we RSN now contributes to both RSP and NPPSG, I wonder if our contributors would like to turn User:Kuru/fakesources into another consensus-oriented list under the RSN umbrella. Could be useful? CC. @Kuru, Lp0 on fire, SuperHamster. SuperGrey (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

isn't this covered by Wikipedia:Spam blacklist? if these are sources that are entirely useless? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the spam blacklist is already there. Can someone check if all sources in User:Kuru/fakesources are covered in the spam blacklist? If not, maybe we could start RfCs on whether to add them to the spam blacklist. SuperGrey (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I tend to be old school with the spam block list; there needs to be a recurring and persistent problem with the fake sources before I add them. There's a section of these sources that are already blocked (see here) by me or others. I would not object to blocking the lot in the "main list" section if consensus is there; they are all garbage. Other sections ("complex problems") can be a little more nuanced - the Good Men Project is an example (used to be a solid site for lightly-edited essays, now it's just a PR flack's open blog platform). There's also the matter of usurped domains and how to handle (the Bomb Report, for example, apparently used to be a good source of movie financials, but now it's clearly gone defunct and the domain restarted by blatant spammers). Sam Kuru (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Most of the sources in that list appear to fit the description, but there are some that could be useful in some circumstances. No one user (even me) should be able to decide for the whole of Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

No one user (even me) should be able to decide for the whole of Wikipedia.
Yeah, and that's why I suggest the sources to be brought to the RSN and go through RfCs, so that they can be in the spam blacklist eventually should the whole Wikipedia agree. That would be the most ideal.
Still, we have to decide how we come up with RfCs. One-by-one discussions or in batches? Kuru's fakesources list is very long, so I'm pretty sure one RfC is not enough. SuperGrey (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we should start with the ones that people are trying to put into articles now. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm just not sure why we would want these to be under the RSN banner. If they get added to articles, they can be individually added to the spam blacklist. Suriname0 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Lumentum Holdings tagged for sources

Can people here tell me which sources are regarded as questionable in Lumentum Holdings.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to ask the person who added the tag first? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at the article anyway and it seems easier to list the sources that are not questionable. Possibly the last one. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Archiseek

Is Archiseek considered reliable? I've seen it on countless articles (Eg. Ireland ref 246, Dublin ref 101, Sinking of the Titanic ref 242), but it seems to be self published by Paul Clerkin. Are the awards the website has earned since its creation in 1996 enough to prove its reliability? Thought I'd ask here to make sure. Finnfrog99 (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

See above: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard page." You should ask your question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

oh, sorry, my bad Finnfrog99 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Fringe/N discussion at VPP

There is a discussion started at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Wrapping up WP:FRINGE/N about wrapping up the Fringe theories noticeboard in favour of formalizing that the scope of the noticeboard is now held by WP:NPOV/N, WP:COI/N and WP:RS/N. Feedback from participants of all four noticeboards would be valuable. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)