Talk:Perennial sources list
(Redirected from Talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources)
Latest comment: 1 month ago by CX Zoom in topic Hatnote
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Perennial sources list article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Cinaroot (talk · contribs) on 14 May 2025. It was contested by Newslinger (talk · contribs) |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 26 May 2025. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | On 20 May 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from Reliable sources/Perennial sources to Perennial sources list. The result of the discussion was moved. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AfD?
editThis page about the WP:RSP essay-class page, containing quotes originating on WP:RSP and wikivoice statements based on what it claims, seems to me incompatible with WP:DUE + Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid + WP:SOAP + WP:CIRC. But do others think it merits WP:AfD (articles for deletion)? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any policy or guideline violations here, considering this is an article about Wikipedia, just like any of the other articles in Category:Wikipedia. The article content cites coverage from reliable secondary sources, and not the list itself. — Newslinger talk 08:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I've listed the article at WP:AfD (Articles for Deletion): Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Noting
editThere might be potential sources under "This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Btw, I think it would be ok if we used "RSP" for "Reliable sources/Perennial sources" in the article body. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Done. I've designated "RSP" as an alternative name in the first sentence, and replaced the full article title with RSP after the first use in the lead section and in the article body. Thank you for maintaining that {{Press}} list. — Newslinger talk 09:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Page title
edit"Reliable sources/Perennial sources" does reflect what the literal page title is, but I am not sure people actually call it that, so much as it's an artifact of the page being a subpage. I have heard it more referred to as "RSP" or "Perennial sources" or the "Perennial sources list". Harej (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with changing the article title to "Perennial sources list", and I am requesting a page move below. — Newslinger talk 04:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- RSP is taken, but I think that's more a insider term. RSP (Wikipedia) might be an ok redirect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, James for suggesting the change. Though I did appreciate the New Yorker article for referencing it in its full glorious name, including the forward slash (which allowed the creation of the page!) Jenny8lee (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Requested move 20 May 2025
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Reliable sources/Perennial sources → Perennial sources list – While the current article title "Reliable sources/Perennial sources" is used by some sources to refer to the article subject, it is not concise and it also has the disadvantage of looking like the actual project space page (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) if the reader does not read the title carefully or understand how Wikipedia namespaces work."Perennial sources list" would be a more concise name that is just as precise as "Reliable sources/Perennial sources". "Perennial sources list" has been used as a shorter way to refer to the list by reliable sources, including a 2023 ACM conference paper, a 2025 ACM journal article, a 2024 book published by Rowman & Littlefield, Ars Technica (RSP entry), the Jewish Journal, and Windows Central. — Newslinger talk 04:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support I think it's an improvement (Harrison calls it "list of so-called Perennial Sources" [1]), though I'm open to hearing more suggestions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support per @Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Isi96 (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Propose Wikipedia perennial sources and support this as well as the one originally proposed. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support: per nom and Gråbergs Gråa Sång. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Propose Wikipedia's perennial sources list. I think it's important to have "Wikipedia" in the title. Including the word "list" matches sources and makes the subject clearer. The title could be displayed with internal italics: Wikipedia's perennial sources list. Possessives in titles are rare, and all other pages with "Wikipedia's" in the title are redirects, but I'm not sure how to avoid the possessive in this case. Jruderman (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- We can have that as a redirect, but "Wikipedia's" doesn't seen that necessary to me since atm there are no other "Perennial sources list". That said, this source [2] actually calls it that. And, the articles at Category:Wikipedia content mostly has Wikipedia in the title. I'm ok with this suggestion too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hatnote
editIs having a hatnote linking to a Wikipedia space article allowed? Wouldn't that count as self-referential? --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 16:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Where would this hatnote be located? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Valjean: it already exists: For the list itself, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 17:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Ah! Okay, yes it is self-referential, but also necessary because that is the situation. This article is about a Wikipedia project page, so there is no other way to do it. Is some policy being violated? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia:Hatnote guideline speaks only of articles and categories, afaict. In this particular case, I think it's ok, possibly mildly IAR, I consider it helpful to readers. It wouldn't fit well under See also either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- What about as an external link? (The only issue I find with the hatnote isn't fixed by including it under "see also"; it's because of mirror copies of Wikipedia and avoiding self references and such).
- I don't know how hatnotes work exactly, but from my personal logic I'd presume it's to help readers reading content find the page they're looking for and not another similarly titled page. A reader probably wouldn't be browsing mainspace to find a list of sources, but it could be a useful "external link" for those more interested in the topic. --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 18:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- EL would be counter-intuitive to me since it's not outside Wikipedia per guideline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've seen it happen in some places, such as Steven Pruitt#External links. --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 18:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- List of Wikipedia people has plenty of examples of this. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 18:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- This obviously needs an ARBCOM case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Is this [FBDB]?
- I don't think the case is that important. --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 18:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- I should have used that template, yes. I was absolutely joking. But it's an anomaly, they don't quite fit See also or EL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's probably fine as it is currently IMO - Justjourney made it a lot better than it was before and my question has mostly been resolved :) --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 18:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- In retrospect that was obvious but you can never know how serious a Wikipedian is. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 20:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- I should have used that template, yes. I was absolutely joking. But it's an anomaly, they don't quite fit See also or EL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- This obviously needs an ARBCOM case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- List of Wikipedia people has plenty of examples of this. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 18:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- {{Wikipedia article editnotice}}? --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 22:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Let me ping @Sdkb and @Moxy into this discussion. I think they know quite a bit about this topic. See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 20 § Linking to projectspace in articles. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 23:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, do you know if an RfC was created?
- I'm not surprised this has already been discussed, but if the debate wasn't resolved, then there's no real guideline or policy to use. It does explain why there's differences between the pages though. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 06:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Let me ping @Sdkb and @Moxy into this discussion. I think they know quite a bit about this topic. See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 20 § Linking to projectspace in articles. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 23:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've seen it happen in some places, such as Steven Pruitt#External links. --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 18:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- EL would be counter-intuitive to me since it's not outside Wikipedia per guideline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think it might be a slight violation of avoiding self references, but it's probably not that big of a deal. --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 18:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- As the editor who edited the hatnote to say "the list itself" instead of "the project page" (because most readers probably may not know that even means), I see this kind of hatnote used often on articles about Wikipedia. The MOS guideline WP:ITSELF recommends using
{{selfref}}and |selfref= parameter and{{srlink}}for these situations. Also giving @Valjean a ping because of their signature. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 18:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)- That's a sensible idea, I didn't know this was a feature. Thanks for clarifying. forgot to ping. --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 18:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- A WP:OTHERCONTENT example can be seen at Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- As the editor who edited the hatnote to say "the list itself" instead of "the project page" (because most readers probably may not know that even means), I see this kind of hatnote used often on articles about Wikipedia. The MOS guideline WP:ITSELF recommends using
- The Wikipedia:Hatnote guideline speaks only of articles and categories, afaict. In this particular case, I think it's ok, possibly mildly IAR, I consider it helpful to readers. It wouldn't fit well under See also either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Ah! Okay, yes it is self-referential, but also necessary because that is the situation. This article is about a Wikipedia project page, so there is no other way to do it. Is some policy being violated? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Valjean: it already exists: For the list itself, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 17:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- It is standard practice to hatnote-link project pages when there is a reasonable chance that a new editor, unaware of projectspace, will search for the term within mainspace: See Move, Rename, Administrator, Summary, etc. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Those are all disambiguation pages, is it also accepted in articles? --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 12:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, see Bureaucrat, Village pump. Hatnotes are navigational aids, so it is okay to link to WP:RSP if you think people are linkely to bump into this article. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Those are all disambiguation pages, is it also accepted in articles? --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 12:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)