Meta talk:Cite Unseen

Archives

---

2019
2020

Sep 2025 Update

Exciting new updates!

• User:SuperGrey has joined as a fellow maintainer of Cite Unseen (that makes two super maintainers of the project!)
• Cite Unseen has moved from the English Wikipedia back here to Meta-Wiki, as a global user script meant to work across the various language versions of Wikipedia.
• The main Cite Unseen code repository is now on Wikimedia GitLab, at gitlab.wikimedia.org/kevinpayravi/cite-unseen.
• With grant support from Wikimedia CH, we've added several new features:
  • Source lists and categorizations now live on Meta-Wiki rather than GitHub, making them easier to view and collaboratively edit.
    • Feel free to be bold and help expand the lists, but review the criteria on each list first. For debatable additions, use the suggestions page (Meta talk:Cite Unseen/Suggestions) to suggest new categorizations.
    • Changes to lists don't go live immediately, as Cite Unseen references specific rev IDs. This helps avoid issues of vandalism, and allows for changes to be reviewed before going live.
    • Our sources lists also now support date ranges, letting us handle sources whose reliability varies over time per en:WP:RSP.
  • A new filtering dashboard appears at the top of an article's References section, showing counts for each source category.
    • Click a category to display only those citations. Can be useful for exploring specific types of sources, and pinpointing potentially unreliable sources.
    • You can disable the dashboard in the settings (more on adjusting settings below).
  • Each References header now includes two extra links:
    • Suggest categorizations, which adds "+" icons next to citations. Click one to propose categories and leave comments; your suggestion is posted to Meta-Wiki for review.
    • Settings, which lets you toggle the dashboard and suggestion buttons, and modify your add/remove custom domain or string categorizations.
      • You can save your settings globally (Meta-Wiki, applies to all language Wikipedias) or locally (current language only).
  • Internationalization is in progress. We currently have Chinese and Japanese translations; contributions of additional languages are welcome (see Meta:Cite_Unseen#Internationalization).

We're continuing active development and expanding our source categorizations, especially for non-English sources. If you have feature ideas or want to help, please get in touch.

Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Happy to see the worldwide release(?). Cheers!--For Each ... Next (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if it's feasible to specify the anonymous option when instantiating mw.ForeignApi(), in order to save a tokens request during normal reading?

Although I am aware that the gadget can perform edit requests (for features like saving settings, category suggestions). It might not worth the complexity to separate the API instance for read-only requests. Srapoj (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

TranslateWiki

to the project maintainers, is there any plan to move the translations to TranslateWiki? the method outlined in the page is quite cumbersome. Juwan (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

We've started the process to onboard onto TranslateWiki, will post an update here once ready! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 10:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Juwan: We have migrated the translation modules to TranslateWiki. Contributions are welcomed! SuperGrey (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Deprecated sources

Thanks for the amazing work on this important project. It currently looks like not all deprecated URLs are being picked up. How do we fix that? - Amigao (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Amigao: Thanks for the kind words, and for reporting the issue with deprecated sources. Looks like the issue stems from when source evaluation lists have differing categorizations (e.g. Daily Caller is listed on en:WP:RSP as deprecated and on en:WP:NPPSG as unreliable, and between the two Cite Unseen is currently showing the unreliable icon). Will push a fix soon, to likely display the most "bad" category (i.e. prioritize displaying deprecated over unreliable) as well as prioritizing RSP over WikiProject evaluations (since RSP is sitewide). Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Deprecated sources should now be properly marked again, but please let us know if you notice any more issues. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

ABS-CBN News without the Newspaper tag

Please consider ABS-CBN News to tag the Newspaper. It is generally considered as news. Fabvill (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Done, we previously had news.abs-cbn.com categorized as news, but that subdomain no longer seems active. abs-cbn.com should now appear as a news source. For future categorization suggestions, please head to Meta talk:Cite Unseen/Suggestions. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 10:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you know any other news sites from the Philippines (or the whole SEA)? Would greatly appreciate it if you can help us build a dedicated list. We already have dedicated lists for several countries/regions (see Meta:Cite_Unseen/sources/type#news). SuperGrey (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Other languages

So far, I have only see sources from English Wikipedia and Chinese Wikiedia, while other languages (such as Vietnamese or Trukish) do have similar lists about reliability of the sources (D:Q59821108). Maybe we should add these sources as well. Saimmx (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

We'd certainly like to support lists from more languages! We can use help is migrating perennial sources lists to our sources structure, similar to enRSP and zhRSP. But we should also first determine which perennial sources lists are appropriate to include. The Turkish RSP seems to be marked as a draft page, and their reliable sources noticeboard seems to have been shut down, so I'm doubtful that we can lean on it as a representative list for source reliability. Vietnamese RSP looks better, except most of the "generally reliable" sources have no linked discussions (perhaps it's considered "common knowledge" that those are generally reliable). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess so. Maybe should take a deeper look on other languages' noticeboard. Saimmx (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

What I have seen from other Wikipedias:

After taking a look, it looks like Persian, French, Russian, and Vietnamese have actived RSPs and RSNs, while the French RSP do not use the icon system, and reliable sources are not discussed in the Vietnamese RSN.

Some languages have activated RSN, but no activated RSP. such as Indonesian (while their RSN is active, it does not always reflect on their RSP). German Wikipedia has an active RSN, but no RSP there.

Inactived RSNs with some useful info include Swedish and Turkish. Swedish RSP looks interesting - they have an RSP but don't have an RSN. They discuss reliability on every page.

And it looks like other RSPs are not maintained anymore. Saimmx (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Cite Unseen working inconsistently on portuguese Wikipedia

Hey! I'm new to Cite Unseen, having installed it globally after the message regarding the new update. However, as far as I've notice and been told, this new version doesn't always work, missing from some pages (such as pt:Ghost (banda) or pt:Embrião for non-functional and pt:Vitré or pt:Me Dá Um Dinheiro Aí for functional). Checking the console, I've noticed the following messages:

[Cite Unseen] Loaded custom rules from meta.wikimedia.org
index.php?title=User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:2864
[Cite Unseen] Loaded custom rules from pt.wikipedia.org
mediawiki.base.js:509 Uncaught URIError: URI malformed
    at decodeURIComponent (<anonymous>)
    at Object.findCitations (index.php?title=User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:3112:39)
    at index.php?title=User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:4671:36
    at Object.add (mediawiki.base.js:534:8)
    at index.php?title=User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:4666:49

Thank you! Little Sunshine (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Speaking to Portuguese Wikipedia, I want to ask you a question: Are pt:WP:FNF (RSP I guess) and pt:WP:CONF (RSN I guess) actived in Portuguese Wikipedia at least in a year? The latest entry the FNF was updated in 2024, almost a year ago, while the latest discussion, MultiRio, was in August, 2025. Saimmx (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey! Yes, they're still active. Just a matter of low participation in pt:WP:CONF delaying the addition of new entries to pt:WP:FNF. Little Sunshine (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

By the way, my message in pt:Embrião:

Uncaught URIError: malformed URI sequence
    findCitations index.php:3112
    init index.php:4671
    add mediawiki.base.js:534
    init index.php:4666
index.php:3112:57

The error occurred at somewheres like:

// Parse COinS string
let coinsString = decodeURIComponent(coinsTag.getAttribute('title'));

Looks like the "Parse COinS string" program throws the error. Saimmx (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The citation, "«GHOST'S 'IMPERA' IS A MORBIDLY EXHILARATING SOUNDTRACK TO DARK TIMES». popmatters. 11 de março de 2022" ([1]) with the "Z3988" class, was rendered "ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fpt.wikipedia.org%3AGhost+%28banda%29&rft.atitle=GHOST%99S+%98IMPERA%99+IS+A+MORBIDLY+EXHILARATING+SOUNDTRACK+TO+DARK+TIMES&rft.date=2022-03-11&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=popmatters&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.popmatters.com%2Fghost-impera-album-review&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal" - it was supposed to be rendered into a decoded Unicode text by the decodeURIComponent API, but seems like it cannot be rendered for unknown reason. Saimmx (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting the issue, Little Sunshine! Interesting...if I copy a citation that causes issues on PT Wikipedia over to EN Wikipedia, Cite Unseen runs fine on it. Something about the encoding that's causing issues. Maybe a difference in how the citation scribunto modules populate the COinS data. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Problem spotted and expect to be solved via merge request 16. Will deploy the fix soon. SuperGrey (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

What was the nature the problem (encoding?) Jenny8lee (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Portuguese Wikipedia uses ISO-8859-1 (Latin-1) encoding to encode citation data (COinS) rather than UTF-8. SuperGrey (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Little Sunshine: SuperGrey's fix has been deployed, and Cite Unseen should now run fine across Portuguese Wikipedia, but please let us know if you run into any more issues! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Checked pt:Embrião. It renders fine for me. Saimmx (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Saimmx, @SuperGrey, and @SuperHamster! Little Sunshine (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

YouTube

I see that links to YouTube, even when they are official accounts for very RS, are listed as "generally unreliable". YouTube links should just be listed as "YouTube" and leave the judging to editors. On a case-by-case basis, official YouTube accounts are just as good as any other RS and doubt should not be raised without obvious evidence that the particular YouTube link really is from a "generally unreliable" source.

It is also listed as "social media". I don't know how or why that judgment is being made. It's probably best to reserve that label for exclusively social media websites like Facebook, Twitter/X, Bluesky, Instagram, Threads, etc. -- Valjean (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

We strictly follow the RSP on the reliability icons. While I personally don't really see the need to give YouTube a "generally unreliable" rating, it is the current consensus: en:WP:RSPYT. If you want to give it a new rating, e.g. "situational reliable", en:WP:RSN is the place for such discussion.

YouTube is by definition, a social media. 👈 Read this article. SuperGrey (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

SuperGrey, let me assure you that I do not dispute the "general" rating, but that also includes this notable exception: "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." Such use is just as reliable as a written transcript from, for example, CNN. CNN's official YouTube account, just like myriad other official accounts from news organizations, all the way to known individuals (per ABOUTSELF), inherit the reliability normally given to that organization or person.

So a blanket "generally unreliable" symbol, when given without any context or examination of whether the actual use in that instance is proper or improper, is rather unjust to when YouTube is being used properly. That is my point. Otherwise, YES, I fully agree with the rating for most of what's on YouTube. We should not use that type of stuff as sourcing, except for the named exceptions.

Your suggestion of "situational reliable" is actually in keeping with what's at WP:RSP and a Solomonic solution (kudos to you!), so that would be a better label. -- Valjean (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

SuperGrey, when YouTube is used as typical social media, you are correct. I was thinking of the way news organizations copy their broadcasts and interviews to YouTube, and where that URL/posting inherits the reliability of the creator of the content. That's the only way I would ever use YouTube as a source here, except for some exceptional ABOUTSELF situation. I would consider such a link to be fundamentally different than a link to some social media influencer's latest gossip, which should indeed be labeled as "social media". How can we deal better with these very different scenarios? -- Valjean (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. If what you want to cite is CNN's official YouTube channel, I think we can safely add this to enRspGenerallyReliable:

URL: youtube.com

Global Search	Google Search
enwiki zhwiki	Domain Whois

, Author: CNN

This will give any YouTube citations with "CNN" as the author parameter a "generally reliable" rating, and it doesn't deviate from the RSP at all. Other channels that are already "generally reliable" in RSP can have this treatment as well. SuperGrey (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I explored this idea earlier when thinking about this very issue. What I discovered is that, at least on English Wikipedia, citations to YouTube often do not have the author field filled out (en:Barack Obama, for example, has two citations to YouTube that are just the title and date). Regardless, when the citation data allows us to do so, I think it would be nice to have this, for the sake of marking when YouTube videos come from generally reliable sources. This doesn't solve the underlying issue of marking everything else as generally unreliable, but still nice to have. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

If they don't fill out the author field, that's on the editors' fault. Just like how a book citation should specify the pages/chapters they are citing, a web citation should responsibly provide the authors, dates, languages, and relevant information (en:Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations). Marking those citations without properly filling the fields as "generally unreliable" is not a bad idea. SuperGrey (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I love the way you're thinking. This is a very nice solution. Can instructions be placed somewhere so it's clear for editors that the "author" parameter should be filled out? -- Valjean (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Personally I also do not like sites like YouTube, Twitter, etc. being marked as generally unreliable, because (as you state) it's very situational, and there are certainly contexts where citing them is appropriate. And I would make a bet that most instances of YouTube being cited are done appropriately, as they are often linking to official news broadcastings, interviews, mini documentaries, and the like. But our reliability categorizations just convey what RSP and other WikiProject reliability lists say, and as you probably know, EN RSP categorizes YouTube as generally unreliable (with the understanding that a number of "generally unreliable" categorizations have nuance and are dependent on context, but that nuance is of course lost when everything is reduced down to little icons). I'm not opposed to categorizing social media sites like YouTube, X, Facebook, etc. under our "multi" category, which I feel more accurately conveys that the reliability of these sources is highly dependent on the individual video or post. We would have to acknowledge and be fine with the fact that we are technically deviating from directly conveying what RSP states, but for the purpose of this tool it's probably more useful in this particular case. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

That's technically possible, e.g., auto-rate "social media" (Meta:Cite_Unseen/sources/medium#social) as "multi", but I'm afraid that might cause some serious backlash from the RSN, at least from the zhwp RSN (as they have just recently gave some social media sites "generally unreliable" ratings). There are many social media sites, and while their reliabilities lie in, at the end of the day, the reliability of individual authors, some sites are often considered more reliable or have good ways to verify the accounts' integrity, differenciate official accounts with fan/mockery accounts, while some other sites are either deprecated or less reliable in general. Instead of stepping in and "deviating" from the RSP, I would prefer a RfC on RSN to ask for a re-rating of the might-be-useful social media sites. "YouTube, X, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram" could be the first batch to be re-rated to "situational reliable". SuperGrey (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

And if RSN re-rating is too much hassle, an alternative way would be to make an optional and default-to-disabled setting that goes: "Don't show the reliability ratings of social media sites." A.k.a., just don't rate it. SuperGrey (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I like that idea (default option to disable reliability ratings for social media). Good middle ground that avoids blanket-marking all social media as generally unreliable, while still giving the option to see RSP's ratings for those sites. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

While I believe that contents from YouTube should be unreliable in most cases and I don't like citing sources from Youtube regardless the author, I think the issue can be addressed - for a contrasted example, I found that politics news of CTi News is reliable just because it was published in Yahoo News - a reliable source on enwp, while CTi News is unreliable or situational reliable on zhwp. Saimmx (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Could be marked "generally unreliable" with URL: tw.news.yahoo.com

Global Search	Google Search
enwiki zhwiki	Domain Whois

, Publisher: 中天新[聞闻][網网]?. Still, I agree that this is a technical difficulty. It is always hard to rate the reliability of sites solely by analyzing URLs. The Cite Unseen is just a first step that helps editors quickly glance reliability; it cannot replace human effort in the evaluation process of the notability or verifiability. SuperGrey (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I currently have no idea how to deal with it as your suggestion of technical difficulty. Saimmx (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Valjean: @SuperHamster has just sent me this discussion thread: en:Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Drafting_the_RFC_question_about_platforms. Adding a separate "platform" reliability rating would be a great idea and saves us all from this deep water. Let's help push this proposal forward. SuperGrey (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Also for reference, here is the archived discussion that led to the current discussion about starting an RfC. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Here's an illustration of the proper use of YouTube. Unfortunately I get a script warning ""Script warning: One or more {{cite web}} templates have errors"". The specific warning is seen below:

This shows how Cite unseen classifies the reference, and how a different citation warning just occurred for some odd reason. Can anyone fix this? -- Valjean (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Well that didn't work as intended, probably because this is Meta. Please look here -- Valjean (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

That is because you used "(official account)" notation, which is redundant. SuperGrey (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I just added CNN's YouTube channel to the generally reliable list: Special:Diff/29306433.

Now it can tag it correctly. SuperGrey (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! CNN works now, but it's still listed as "social media", and CNN isn't "social media". -- Valjean (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know - should we call CNN feeds on Facebook or Threads "social media"? We may call them "social media". By definition SuperGrey suggested, I think it is still on social media. Saimmx (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see that as a fault. The purpose of the social media icon is to let readers know that the linked website hosts user-generated content that anyone can upload, regardless of whether the particular post or video happens to be from a news org, an independent creator, or someone else. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Here are a few more official "verified" YouTube accounts: "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability."

• https://www.youtube.com/@Reuters
• https://www.youtube.com/@AFP
• https://www.youtube.com/@AssociatedPress
• https://www.youtube.com/@BBC
• https://www.youtube.com/@BBCMyWorld
• https://www.youtube.com/@ABCNews
• https://www.youtube.com/@NBCNews
• https://www.youtube.com/@CBSNews
• https://www.youtube.com/@msnbc
• https://www.youtube.com/@CNBC
• https://www.youtube.com/@WashingtonPost
• https://www.youtube.com/@nytimes
• https://www.youtube.com/@guardiannews
• https://www.youtube.com/@NPR
• https://www.youtube.com/@PBS
• https://www.youtube.com/@POLITICO
• https://www.youtube.com/@thenation
• https://www.youtube.com/@TheAtlantic
• https://www.youtube.com/@newyorker
• https://www.youtube.com/@Vox
• https://www.youtube.com/@VanityFair
• https://www.youtube.com/@MotherJones
• https://www.youtube.com/@TheDailyBeast
• https://www.youtube.com/@ColbertLateShow
• https://www.youtube.com/@TheMajorityReport
• https://www.youtube.com/@TheView
• https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks
• https://www.youtube.com/@KentronChannel (Armenian news channel)

If you would like help doing this, tell me how and I'll be happy to help. -- Valjean (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm wondering about using the author= parameter. Wouldn't it be better to use the publisher= parameter? Author is usually for a person, and with good, unique, references, that person's name and citation date are also used in the "ref name=" parameter like this example <ref name="Wood_1/12/2017" />. I don't think we should use the author= parameter. Some other parameter, but not that one. -- Valjean (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Valjean: I think that's right. Here is an example from Wikipedia:Video_links, where an opening statement from Anthony Fauci has the author as Fauci, the website as youtube.com, and the publisher as PBS News Hour. The Cite Web template also has a via parameter that can be used to specify YouTube (so one could say, the publisher is PBS News Hour via YouTube). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah! I like it. That makes more sense. Is this simply a decision you make here and we can start doing it? I would like to do this better, so let me know which parameter to use. I guess posting the Cite templates at the top of the project page here, with instructions for which parameters to use, would be good. -- Valjean (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

You can edit Meta:Cite_Unseen/sources/enRSP like this: Special:Diff/29273308/29311977. Basically, find the news site, and add its YouTube channel to the list. SuperGrey (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I have now added most of that list above seen above. -- Valjean (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Citation test. SuperGrey (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

So "via=" works for a ref. Will it now appear as a Cite Unseen notation? -- Valjean (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

We just look at the domain in the external link to match YouTube and other sources. We don't currently check via for anything. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

User:SuperHamster, here is a reference that isn't showing an ABC News video on YouTube as a RS:

Source:

What's wrong? You may have to test it on Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Valjean: Updates to the lists here on Meta don't instantly reflect on Cite Unseen. We review changes before deploying them via this GitLab file, where we specify the approved revision ID for each of our lists. Otherwise, the lists would be suspectible to vandalism, invalid syntax breaking the script, etc.

You should now see "ABC News (United States)" marked as generally reliable. Note, I restored the original "ABC News" as well. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. It's good you have those safety mechanisms in place. When I look here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Cite_Unseen/sources/enRSP#enRspGenerallyReliable I see both ABC News and ABC News (United States) listed. (I am not referring to "ABC News (Australia)". Your system here probably recognizes the difference. Writing "ABC News" gets rejected as a disambiguation problem.) Note that a non-YouTube ref to ABC News (United States) works just fine and shows up as reliable.

When I look at that reference on Wikipedia, it still doesn't show up as reliable, but still as unreliable. Does the ref need to be tweaked? -- Valjean (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Polish translation

@SuperHamster Hello, I am from Polish Wikipedia and became interested in the Polish translation of Cite Unseen for the purposes of my home wiki. You can find a JSON file with the proposed translation here: User:Ironupiwada/CiteUnseen-i18n.json.

I would also like to ask whether it will be possible to adapt the tool so that the Cite Unseen Settings option (at least applicable for the Meta Wiki settings) is highlighted on Polish Wikipedia as well as on the English one (we normally use the section Przypisy to show references). Regards, Ironupiwada (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ironupiwada: Thank you so much! We'll review and add your localization soon. We're also working on fixing the issue of the Cite Unseen Settings + filtering dashboard not appearing (this is due to the Polish Wikipedia using a different classname for its references lists, which our script does not capture). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 10:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ironupiwada: Thank you! Your translation is merged and awaiting deployment.

By the way, we have migrated the translation modules to TranslateWiki, where you can contribute directly if you like in the future. SuperGrey (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Filtering dashboard, ordering of "reliability" category icons

@SuperHamster, I suggest that the "reliability" category icons be ordered left-to-right with the positives first and working toward the negative. First impressions mean a lot.

While I'm here... Is the dashboard visible to all readers or only to logged-in editors? -- Valjean (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Valjean: Visible to users with Cite Unseen installed; so, yes, logged-in editors.

Thank you for your suggestions on the dashboard icon order! I'll shift them around. SuperGrey (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Valjean (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Restructuring enwiki's RSP page

Please see w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Restructuring RSP. If this script depends on the current structure of w:en:WP:RSP, then @SuperHamster and any other maintainers may want to have a look at what's happening. We may be moving away from a table towards subpages with categories for relevant factors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: As one of the two maintainers, I've been following the RfC throughout. Don't worry, Cite Unseen doesn't depend on the RSP structure. By the way, I'm very much looking forward to the new "list of subpages" RSP, as this approach could lead to a significant increase in the number of rated sources that Cite Unseen can include. Best, SuperGrey (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad that whatever we do, we're not going to break things here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Conflict of Template:脚注ヘルプ in jawp

In Japanese Wikipedia, they use a special template called ja:Template:脚注ヘルプ - it looks like a help of how to use footnotes. However, it looks like Cite Unseen is conflicted with the template, so they occupy the same line. You can see it on ja:鈴与

Seems like Japanese Wikipedia don't have RSN/RSP and the widget may be unfamiliar to them. Any ideas? Or the styling issue isn't a something that should concern? Saimmx (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@SuperGrey: Saimmx (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Saimmx: Would removing the display of {{脚注ヘルプ}} be an acceptable solution, when Cite Unseen is enabled? SuperGrey (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea now since I am unfamiliar with communities in Japanese Wikipedia, sorry. Saimmx (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards hiding that template from showing up. Cite Unseen users already know "how to use footnotes." SuperGrey (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem here, other than the box being slightly squeezed? Nardog (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Exactly - the box being slightly squeezed. Saimmx (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

FWIW adding clear: both; to .cite-unseen-dashboard is one solution. Another I can think of is to make the box appear at the top of the section ‎<references /> is in instead of right before it. Nardog (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Floating image

Floating templates: {{脚注ヘルプ}} and {{Commons category}}

Removing clear: both; is exactly what we came up with to solve the floating element issue. Sometimes many other floating templates (e.g., {{Commons category}}) or tall media files take up the space on the right, so the dashboard has to shrink, in a similar manner to the {{reflist}}.

We've also thought of inserting the dashboard inside the {{reflist}}. However, if the {{reflist}} is in two columns, the dashboard would only appear in the first column, instead of spanning the whole {{reflist}}, which doesn't look as good.

See this merge request for our previous thoughts. Still, if you have any bright ideas on a better solution, feel free to let us know. SuperGrey (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nardog: As much as I want to remove {{脚注ヘルプ}}, it's too hard to differentiate this template with other floating templates. I came up with a costly fix: merge requests/30. What do you think of this approach? SuperGrey (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

If you specifically removed clear: both; so floating elements can be around it, then what is wrong with {{脚注ヘルプ}} doing the same? You can't have it both ways. I see nothing wrong in your second screenshot. I assume Saimmx thought this was a bug when it was a feature. I don't see anything to fix. Nardog (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, basically my point. Still, since people regard it as a style issue, we have to come up with some fixes to address that... SuperGrey (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a web interface

Hi, this may seem a little silly, but is there a webpage I can go to to paste in urls and see what they're rated before actually editing a wikipedia page? It would be very handy for me as a fast way to check what the current consensus is vs digging though old threads. Thanks! RayScript (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@RayScript: Not silly at all! We don't currently have a UI like that, but one of our to-do list items is to develop both an API and portal of sorts to allow users to do that sort of exploration. That being said, Cite Unseen icons do appear when previewing an article edit via "edit source", so you can at least get feedback on citations you add before saving the page. Unfortunately Cite Unseen does not seem to work in Visual Editor, but that's something we can look at fixing.

There's another separate project being worked on called WikiSignals (see en:User:Hearvox/WikiSignals and wikisignals.org), which allows you to provide a domain and see various credibility signals (domain age, citation count, RSP ratings, appearance on other lists, etc.). It's a work in progress, with the eventual goal of having it be a user script that provides the analysis when adding citations. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)