Talk:Cite Unseen

Archives

---

2019
2020
2025

---

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 months may be auto-archived by ArchiverBot if there are more than 4.

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)

Sorry for the wait! I just noticed that neither I nor @SuperHamster have replied to this comment since September.

Since this is neither English nor Chinese, we also need to think about how we can maintain the list after the initial import given the language barrier, in addition to the point SuperHamster raised: whether the original list is actively maintained, and whether we can reasonably rely on it as a representative list for reliability.

I think the French and Russian RSPs are good candidates to import, though each has its own difficulties:

• French RSP doesn't have categories nor icons.
• Russian RSP doesn't list URLs.

I've left a comment on French Wikipedia asking for help. For the Russian RSP, we will likely need to find volunteer contributors as well, but let's wait for French Wikipedia to respond first. SuperGrey (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

"Reputable" news organization?

At present, the tag reads: "This source is a news article from a reputable news organization."

The problem is that a statement of reputability flies in the face of consensus in some cases. Wouldn't it be just as accurate and far more neutral to simply state, "This source is an article from a news organization" and leave it at that? - Amigao (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Amigao: What about this?
This is a list of reputable news websites that Wikipedia considers generally or situationally reliable, except when covering political topics or topics involving conflicts of interest. (from the lead sentence of Cite Unseen/sources/news)
The deal is that, we have a separate category "tabloids" for tabloid journalism, and they are supposed to be mutually exclusive. SuperGrey (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

That longer text could work better for sources considered en:WP:MREL, but we wouldn't want that appearing over en:WP:GREL sources that are, in fact, truly reputable. - Amigao (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, we also have the reassuring Generally Reliable green icon, right? As long as it's evaluated on RSP (or any other projects' source lists), it will have a green checkmark. SuperGrey (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

@Amigao and SuperGrey: When Cite Unseen was first developed (2019), it focused more on the nature and medium of sources and did not have the reliability icons that it does now. The news icon was described early on as "traditional reputable news sources", which served as a signal of both type and reliability. In late 2020, RSP reliability icons were introduced, but the "reputable" part of the news category stayed, perhaps with a mix of intention but also status quo. With our reliability categories expanded, I do think it makes sense to "decouple" reliability from the news category a bit, and let Wikipedia reliability ratings do the talking.

Here's my suggestion (let me know what you think): "Journalistic reporting from an outlet whose primary purpose includes reporting on current/recent events, under an editorial process."

My intention with the above is to basically capture "real" news organizations, from local newspapers to international outlets, while avoiding publications that may report current events but lack the organizational structure we expect of reliable news organizations (thinking Substacks, pink-slime, etc.)

If we go that route, I'm wondering how to approach category overlaps. For example, state-controlled news media currently gets the "state media" and potentially "marginally reliable" or "generally unreliable" icons. Would we also want to put the news icon in there? Or perhaps we only show the news icon when other icons are not present?

Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Based on how the "news" category is used in practice, I support the revised framing "Journalistic reporting from an outlet ...".
It does not need to be mutually exclusive with "government" or reliability markers. Maintaining multiple mutually exclusive lists will be tiring, and we already treat "tabloids" as mutually exclusive with "news".
These are my suggestions. Best, SuperGrey (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Very much agreed and the change to "Journalistic reporting from an outlet..." would be an improvement. - Amigao (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

"News" category Definition has been updated, both in the documentation and in the script in English and Chinese (pending translation to other languages). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Add a classification of "AI generated"?

I am recently translating an essay, "Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing", into Chinese (维基百科:AI生成文的特徵). I found that the "utm_source parameter" section is very useful when checking the source's reliability, and it's very easy to spot one by searching UTM parameters. I think it's a good idea to add the classification. Saimmx (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

At the essay, it provides:

• utm_source=chatgpt.com
• utm_source=openai
• utm_source=copilot.com
• referrer=grok.com

Saimmx (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Could be worth a new category due to the ongoing presence of AI slop everywhere. @SuperHamster: Any thoughts? SuperGrey (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, I think it'd be a good category to have. There are also sites out there that publish entirely AI-generated content with no human oversight (often pretending to be " news") that could also fit in this category (NewsGuard, for example, has a list, albeit it is not publicly available).

What should the icon be? Could just be a solid square that says "AI" in the middle. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Can it be a robot?Royal Sailor (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

This poop-colored robot icon could be what you are looking for: File:Codex icon robot color-warning.svg. SuperGrey (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Robots, of course Saimmx (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@SuperHamster: See lead sentence: This is a list of websites, pages, and link patterns associated with unedited AI-generated content, including pages that publish substantial AI-generated material without human editorial oversight and URLs tagged with AI-referrer parameters (for example, utm_source=chatgpt.com). (Cite Unseen/sources/aiGenerated). Is this good, or need rephrasing? SuperGrey (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

And the icon tooltip: This source is associated with unedited AI-generated content. It may be a website that publishes substantial AI-generated material without human editorial oversight, or a source link tagged with AI-referrer parameters. SuperGrey (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

merge_requests/53. SuperGrey (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Very good. When can we add to Cite Unseen#Classifications? Saimmx (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Not quite yet - we're currently discussing splitting the AI classifications into two (AI-slop sources vs. AI-referred). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Worked with User:SuperGrey and we now have two new categories deployed (and the start of our own little army of bot icons!)

AI generated: Sources associated with unedited AI-generated content. It may be a website that publishes substantial AI-generated material without human editorial oversight.

AI referred: Sources with a URL that contains AI/LLM tracking parameters (such as utm_source=chatgpt.com) indicating that it was copied from an AI assistant. The associated text may have also been AI-generated, and the source may or may not corroborate the given statements.

Thanks for suggesting the AI-referred category, Saimmx, I think it's a great addition. I've also learned that ENWP has en:Template:AI-retrieved source, which could/should probably be applied by a bot. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 11:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Allow showing the ratings of other languages even there is a rating in the same language

Now, If a source is rated in multiple languages, when we view an article in a language version of Wikipedia, Cite Unseen will only show the rating in the source list of that language, but not also showing ratings in other languages. For example, when an article cites Wenweipo, I can only see it is marginally reliable when reading in Chinese Wikipedia, and is deprecated when reading in English Wikipedia. However, if I view the article in Cantonese Wikipedia, I can see both ratings for the cited source. Therefore, what I want is a customization that even if a source is already rated in the language version of Wikipedia that I am reading, I can still see the ratings in other languages. @SuperGrey and SuperHamster for discussion. Royal Sailor (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Could be worth a Settings entry. SuperGrey (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Done. Added to the latest patch. SuperGrey (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Now deployed as of v2.2.0. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 11:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Empty icon container still adds leading padding to citation

.cite-unseen-icons currently has padding-right: 5px to separate Cite Unseen icons from the text content of the citation. However, when there are no icons present, it still adds 5px padding at the start, which means the text looks slightly indented (example screenshot from en:Zi (film)). This occurs in both the citation popup and the reflist at the end of the article.

This is a nitpicky thing, but I would like to suggest the padding be hidden when the icon container is empty so the text properly aligns. Here is one way you could do it:

.cite-unseen-icons:empty {
	padding-right: 0px;
}

Iiii I I I (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your suggestion! Added to the latest patch. SuperGrey (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Now deployed as of v2.2.0. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 11:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't really work on frwiki

I'm not sure why, but the way they format their citations doesn't seem to work with cite unseen. I'm on V22, and can send screenshots if necessary. I get the same on fawiki iirc; the icons don't appear next to the citations, and at the top of the reflist it says something like "total 77 citations, 3 no consensus, 5 unknown links" and just doesn't list the other categories. lp0 on fire () 11:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It's because their fr:Module:Biblio is unique and does not have COinS defined as part of CS1 or CS2 citation syntax. SuperGrey (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah okay. Any way of fixing it? (Besides making frwiki use a different citation style) lp0 on fire () 12:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Simplest and most beneficial way is to just ask frwiki to generate COinS in fr:Module:Biblio. They don't need to implement a whole COinS system; just the basic metadata. For example, this is a CS1 Citation on enwiki (taken from en:Barack Obama):

<span class="reference-text">
  <cite id="CITEREFIsidore2010" class="citation news cs1">Isidore, Chris (January 29, 2010). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/economy/gdp/index.htm">"Best economic growth in six years"</a>. CNN. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100420161722/http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/economy/gdp/index.htm">Archived</a> from the original on April 20, 2010<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">April 18,</span> 2010</span>.</cite>
  <span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=article&amp;rft.atitle=Best+economic+growth+in+six+years&amp;rft.date=2010-01-29&amp;rft.aulast=Isidore&amp;rft.aufirst=Chris&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2010%2F01%2F29%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Fgdp%2Findex.htm&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ABarack+Obama" class="Z3988"></span>
</span>

There is this <span> that contains a long string of text--called COinS--sitting next to the <cite>. The COinS text can be decoded into this, basically a set of key-value pairs separated by &:

ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Best economic growth in six years&rft.date=2010-01-29&rft.aulast=Isidore&rft.aufirst=Chris&rft_id=https://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/economy/gdp/index.htm&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Barack Obama

So long as frwiki creates such COinS with these params, or at the very least, with rft.date, rft.aulast, rft.aufirst, and rft_id, the Cite Unseen can work seamlessly without further setup.

COinS is a very commonly used citation syntax across projects and software programs. Here is another documentation from Digital Classicist Wiki. SuperGrey (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I'm going to create a half-baked backup implementation for frwiki. Not as reliable as COinS-augmented solutions though. SuperGrey (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Done: a workaround on frwiki is deployed. SuperGrey (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Add mirror classification category

This category would contain sources that are known Wikipedia mirror sites, so that any circular referencing can be identified. PeriodicEditor (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@PeriodicEditor: Interesting idea. Do you see mirrors cited enough to warrant adding a whole new category? We could alternatively add mirrors alongside wikipedia.org's appearance in the "editable" and "generally unreliable" categories (a mirror is not editable of course, but still the same source under the hood). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see them much, but it would be useful to get a simple way of finding any mirrors. I agree that it would make sense to put in editable. Thanks PeriodicEditor (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

An alternative would be to consider (the subpages of) w:en:Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (Cite Unseen/sources/enMIRRORS) as a community-curated list of generally unreliable sources. lp0 on fire () 17:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

English Wiki

Hi, SuperGrey! May I ask how many days or weeks to appear in English Wiki if I add the sources? Royiswariii (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Royiswariii: Both SuperGrey and Royal Sailor are pretty quick about approving updates to our source lists. Usually within a few days, if not sooner. Is there an update you've made that you're not seeing reflected?

Also note, Cite Unseen caches source categorization data in your browser for 24 hours, so even once a categorization list is updated and approved, it can take up to a day to see the update. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

SuperHamster: No. I'm just asking, since I am currently updating all sources which I saw on RSN and to Tambayan Philippines source. I am currently active on noticebord and add all here consensus. Royiswariii (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Royiswariii: Thank you for your very appreciated contributions! I see that en:Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Sources looks pretty promising. Would you like to help include this source list to the ruleset? I've created a landing page: Cite Unseen/sources/enTAMBAYS. We just need to add the domains into this page, then they can be included in the latest Cite Unseen ruleset. SuperGrey (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@SuperGrey, okay. I'll let you know once I am done. Royiswariii (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, SuperGrey!

It's Done now. Some of the sources are not included since we need more discussion on our WikiProject. But, all of the source which editors are agree on the reliability for now.

Also, may I ask, how do you add the magazines and e-magazines added as books? I can't find where to add sources for magazines and e-magazines or is it automatically detected? Royiswariii (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your great contributions! 🎉
About the magazines -- if they have news coverage, you can add them to Cite Unseen/sources/news; there are already lots of magazines in this category. And, your guess is correct -- the "books" icon is auto-detected when they are cited through {{Cite book}} or {{Cite journal}}; the icon can also be tagged manually (Cite Unseen/sources/books), but the manual tagging is reserved for digital books/journals and academic libraries and not for general magazines. SuperGrey (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, SuperGrey!

I want to be a maintainer here but, I need to explore your user scripts. Royiswariii (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I would also suggest you update the revision IDs at the top of each page. It's a good way to track changes to the original source page. Use this tool to reveal those IDs on your watchlist: User:SuperGrey/gadgets/ShowRevisionID.js. SuperGrey (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable because of ASIN?

I am recently checking an article of en:Ukrainian architecture, but something weird happened - This book at the article is unreliable:

• Hewryk, Titus D. (1982). "The Monastery Of St. Michael Of The Golden Domes". The Lost Architecture of Kiev. New York: en:The Ukrainian Museum. ASIN B0006E9KPQ. Archived from the original on 12 January 2018. Retrieved 8 February 2024. 

But it seems odd to me - The Ukrainian Museum should not unreliable in Ukrainian architecture. Not sure why, but I guess it's because the template use en:ASIN_(identifier) and have generated an amazon link, which is en:WP:RSPAMAZON? But it looks strange. Saimmx (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your bug report! Let me investigate it and think of a solution. SuperGrey (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster

Merriam-Webster needs to be rated a RS. -- Valjean (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Just started a new thread on en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Merriam-Webster. SuperGrey (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

LOL! You're joking, right? -- Valjean (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

We only accept ratings already present on RSPs (and similar lists). Merriam-Webster currently isn't on any such lists. SuperGrey (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

That thought blows my mind. If there is any source that would generally be rated reliable, that one, before all others, is as basic as it gets. -- Valjean (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Even if it is reliable "in everyone's minds", our reliable icons are only managed per list (see Cite Unseen/sources) and there isn't a place for imaginary reliability. SuperGrey (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

We also have en:WP:NPPSG so eventually there will be an entry after this discussion, don't you worry. SuperGrey (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Done: Added to NPPSG and therefore it will be marked RS very soon. SuperGrey (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Valjean (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Our reliability icons are always concensus-based icons -- this will not change. For those "clearly reliable" sources, if you encounter them in the future, either you directly add them to NPPSG, then come back here to modify the enNPPSG/2; or just withstand that it will not be marked, but from your heart you (and everyone else) acknowledge its reliability. From my limited understanding of the NPPSG policy, you are allowed to directly add a "clearly reliable" source there without an RSN discussion. SuperGrey (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I have to reflect that it is my fault to start a thread on RSN when RSN is not needed; nor is it appropriate to mention RSP as RSP is already way too bloated and they have policy to not add "clearly reliable" sources there. I should be more careful to learn more about the policies before engaging in enwp. SuperGrey (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@SuperHamster next time you should deal with such requests -- you would know it better than me! SuperGrey (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
FYI, I just realized that this might not be obvious to someone for whom English language and culture is not their first or primary thing in life. When an American says "Merriam-Webster", they are most likely referring to its primary product, which is the main American dictionary, known as Webster's Dictionary. It is what tells us what words mean, IOW it is the ultimate RS for American English. In England it is Oxford Dictionary of English and Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford also publishes an American language version, New Oxford American Dictionary. These are all authoritative English language dictionaries and are all considered extremely RS. They should all be added here at Cite Unseen. -- Valjean (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Cool. Done: I added oed.com, oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com to enNPPSG/2 after I updated en:WP:NPPSG.
Feel free to update the source pages when you encounter more of them. Thanks! SuperGrey (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Valjean (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to add for the record and future reference (mostly just repeating what's been discussed above): we currently do not categorize sources by reliability on our own, even when blatantly obvious. We're a technical tool with the goal of surfacing reliability categorizations that Wikipedians have determined through consensus, and we probably do not want to be another hub for reliability discussions to take place (that's what the reliability noticeboard and WikiProjects are for). We want provenance for every reliability categorization we add, to be able to say "this source was deemed (un)reliable by X project/community", and not just "we figured it ourselves". Even for obvious categorizations, I think we open a can of worms if we start classifying source reliability ourselves. As discussed above, the most straightforward approach to get "obvious" domains added to Cite Unseen is to get it added to one of the WikiProject lists (whether NPP or one of the topical WikiProjects), where other editors are also watching and helping make reliability determinations. And from there we can add it to Cite Unseen. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

These are the types of situations where WP:IAR may apply. -- Valjean (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think IAR applies. As SuperHamster has said, Cite Unseen is just a tool that collects and reflects what the community agreed with, and maybe show user perference. It should not replace community discussions. Saimmx (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Can we edit on en:WP:RSN or en:WP:NPPSG, declearing that Merriam-Webster is reliable without discussion, with a comment that it applies en:WP:IAR or en:WP:SNOW? If the answer is yes, then maybe we can add it here as well. If no, I don't think we can add it here by IAR, too. Saimmx (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I generally agree. This was just such a fundamental case (nothing spoken or written in English matters at all without a dictionary to tell us what the words mean) that, if there were a situation where IAR would apply, this would be it. The fact that we can even write and discuss is related to the meanings and spellings of words. That's pretty basic, like "the sky is blue". There is an a priori assumption that it deserves a green RS checkmark. -- Valjean (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are agree with. I will assume that you are answering my "Can we edit" question with a "yes". While it makes sense in your logic, I still questioned on it - I am unsure the English community, but if anyone edit on en:WP:RSN or en:WP:NPPSG in such manner, I will revert it, so my answer is a "No". Saimmx (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)