Jump to content

Talk:Cite Unseen/Suggestions/Archive 1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Talk:Cite Unseen | Suggestions
Latest comment: 4 months ago by SuperGrey in topic bloomberg.com/profile/

stcn.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


内存溢出的猫 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

jinwanbaoepaper.enorth.com.cn

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Note: Its website hides articles that are older than 6 months. Disable JavaScript to view the content. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

"书刊(books)" category is limited to publication aggregators.
Done I've added this to the "新闻(news)" category. SuperGrey (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

xiaohongshu.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

en:Xiaohongshu. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Already done. SuperGrey (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

baltimoresun.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


GreenC (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

explore.baltimoreheritage.org

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Described at w:Baltimore Heritage as a historical advocacy organization. -- GreenC (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your suggestions! SuperGrey (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

China Daily

Latest comment: 7 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Suggested categories: "reputable news organization" should probably not appear for chinadaily.com.cn.
Comment: see en:WP:CHINADAILY for further context on the nature of this news organization. Also, note that Cite Unseen quite accurately does not produce a "reputable news organization" icon for en:WP:XINHUA. China Daily ought to be similar in categorization. - Amigao (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. I agree that China Daily should not be in the "news" category given the extensive cautionary guidance around its use: There is consensus that China Daily may be used, cautiously and with good editorial judgment, [...] as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) China Daily's omission of details from a story should not be used to determine that such details are untruthful (en:WP:CHINADAILY). I also agree that Xinhua should be removed from the "news" category, as its cautionary guidance is lengthy and cannot be captured by a single "news" icon: Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua (en:WP:XINHUA). Both have been removed from the "news" category, and related domains are now listed under "government."
This change is not intended to set a blanket precedent for all Chinese state-affiliated media. The media environment in China includes substantial state affiliation, but that does not invalidate all coverage of non-political topics. Chinese outlets that are generally reputable domestically and show limited propaganda in such areas can remain in "news." This approach is broadly consistent with how we treat English‑language outlets, recognizing that every publication has some political perspective. It does not include state‑affiliated outlets with a strong propagandistic orientation, such as China Daily and Xinhua, which we only classify under "government."
Anyway, thanks for pointing out the category error of China Daily. If you spot anything else, please don't hesitate to let us know. SuperGrey (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the update and explanation. It also looks like certain instances of en:People's Daily are categorized as a "reputable news organization" and I do not believe there is any consensus reached on en:WP:RSN that would back up that designation. I believe this is due to three People's Daily URLs being categorized slight differently by Cite Unseen: people.cn, people.com.cn, and peopledaily.com.cn - Amigao (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm, a tricky one. Since we don't have an enwp RSP consensus, here's the zhwp RSP shortcut for People's Daily for reference: zh:WP:人民日报 (listed as "marginally reliable").
I reviewed recent main-page articles on People's Daily sites. Quick notes:
  • en.people.cn (English site): Coverage is largely state messaging with little critical or negative reporting. Done: Added to the "government" category (not in the "news" category to begin with).
  • people.com.cn (Chinese site): Heavy focus on their charming leader Xi Jinping, and plenty of political commentary. Health/tech sections reflect a propagandistic style; the society section reads more like genuine reporting, but many of these pieces appear to be reposts from other newspapers -- if editors want to use non-political reposts, they should cite the original source. Done: Removed from "news" and added to "government."
These are my observations, and of course, not community consensus, so I'm open to any corrections incoming, especially from mainland Chinese editors. SuperGrey (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Btw, I'm currently doing an RfC on zhwp RSN, if you are interested in participating. SuperGrey (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, but please take a look at cites #227 to 229 over at en:Chinese Communist Party and you'll still see certain inconsistencies. - Amigao (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Should be updated now -- for safety reasons, we host a "latest reviewed revision IDs" list to prevent disruption. The repository is here: kevinpayravi/cite-unseen-revids. SuperGrey (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

threads.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Current domain of threads.net. --魔琴 (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Done, thanks! I've kept threads.net in as well, since there are still citations that reference the old domain. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

mlbtraderumors.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is a news site focused on breaking news relating to Major League Baseball. Also publishes blog articles and opinon pieces NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 20:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Done: added to "blog post(s)". "News" is reserved for reputable newspapers, while "opinion piece(s)" are opinion pieces by those newspapers. SuperGrey (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

canarymedia.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Generally reliable, high quality newsroom focused on sustainability, energy transition and climate, I have consistently found them to be useful, Sadads (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a good reliable source? I suggest you start a thread on en:WP:RSN, to gather a consensus for its reliability. SuperGrey (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

winnipegfreepress.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Current domain for en:Winnipeg Free Press. Kline • talk • contribs 21:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

leaderpost.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Current domain for en:Regina Leader-Post. Kline • talk • contribs 21:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

palmbeachpost.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Current domain for en:The Palm Beach Post. Kline • talk • contribs 21:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

winnipegsun.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Current domain for en:Winnipeg Sun. Kline • talk • contribs 21:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Done: see Meta:Cite Unseen/sources/type#United States media and Meta:Cite Unseen/sources/type#Canadian media. SuperGrey (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

screendaily.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is a well regarded film industry publication? Should be listed in WikiProject:Film perhaps. note that the url is screendaily.com, but the name of the publication is "Screen." Jenny8lee (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you point out where the WikiProject Film discussion or listing is, that contains Screen? Cause I couldn't find it at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#List of potential resources. SuperGrey (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

thetimes.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

British newspaper. Surprised this isn't already categorized as news? If not, I feel like the data is pulling oddly incomplete from somewhere. Jenny8lee (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jenny8lee: Done, thanks. We had thetimes.co.uk already marked as news, but it looks like they switched to .com in 2024 (which neither Cite Unseen nor RSP had captured). I've updated both Cite Unseen and RSP with the new domain.
Our list of news sites isn't pulled from anywhere, it's really mostly just been compiled by a few users over the years along with some one-off suggestions, so there are going to be gaps (paricularly for non-English sites). Hence the new suggestions feature and bringing the lists to Meta, so it's easier for community members to help expand.
If you know of any good compilations of reliable news sites that we can consider integrating, that could be very helpful. Lion Publishers may be a good one for us to start with. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

cjr.org

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is a well regarded industry journal and should be considered generally reliable.

But I find this interface of suggesting via this Cite Unseen form for RSP not helpful for people who are not already engaged in RSP debates (this form just links to RSP?) and would appreciate if the developers would help create a user flow that integrates these two more smoothly so moderately active Wikipedians can engage in these discussions.

Jenny8lee (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Done: added to the "news" category.
Thanks for sharing your experience with the suggestion interface. Here are my thoughts: we incorporate source lists from multiple projects, not just RSN. Each project has its own method for submitting new sources, such as custom instructions (e.g., en:WP:RSPIMPROVE) or specific thread formats (e.g., preload forms). Given that, I guess linking to each project's listing page is sufficient without adding too much complexity.
That being said, if you have any ideas on how to improve this, please don't hesitate to share with us. SuperGrey (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

newspapers.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure if there's precedent for listing a database. However, the vast majority of publications hosted there are newspapers. At this point, I'm not going to make any suggestions as to the reliability of newspapers on this website, just pointing out that newspapers.com/article pages almost exclusively consist of newspaper clippings. Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Added newspapers.com/article under news, thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

nydailynews.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is a regional American newspaper (see en:New York Daily News). Epicgenius (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Surprised this is not categorized as news, especially since it's listed on RSP as generally reliable? Jenny8lee (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Done, thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

kpcw.org

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does it make sense to say orgs like KCRW have a radio component (? NPR, WNYC), though notably this is a digitally published piece. Jenny8lee (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jenny8lee: Done, thanks! SuperGrey (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

spokesman.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Domain for en:The Spokesman-Review Kline • talk • contribs 23:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

kiro7.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Domain for en:KIRO-TV Kline • talk • contribs 23:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

tri-cityherald.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Domain for en:Tri-City Herald Kline • talk • contribs 23:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

keprtv.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Domain for en:KEPR-TV Kline • talk • contribs 23:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

yakimaherald.com

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Domain for en:Yakima Herald-Republic Kline • talk • contribs 23:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. @Kline: Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
@Kline: Based on your suggestions, I can see you have a clear vision of what qualifies as a "news" source. I'd like to invite you to modify the original list directly: Meta:Cite Unseen/sources/type#news. If you discover additional sites that aren't yet included, please feel free to add them! SuperGrey (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
@SuperGrey Thanks, will do. :) Kline • talk • contribs 12:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

What about "no consensus"?

Latest comment: 7 months ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Note: This thread was originally posted to Meta_talk:Cite_Unseen/sources/enRSP

Such sites are currently tagged with a question mark, and that is definitely a negative thing. There should be no tag at all for sites with "no consensus". If anything, that means the community tacitly accepts them without question, so much so that no one has bothered to ask at WP:RSP. That question mark should be dropped completely.

Examples:

Valjean (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Valjean: In the context of RSP, "no consensus" is part of the "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" RSP category (en:WP:MREL). It means that the source has been discussed, and the discussions were not able to come to a consensus on whether a source should be quality as generally reliable or unreliable. A "no consensus" source usually has some level of reliability, but may have some concerns or may not be appropriate to use in certain contexts. These sources are marked by Cite Unseen the yellow exclamation icon, the same as RSP.
Now, the description for our "multi" category (with the question mark) also mentions "no consensus", which is indeed not accurate. The sources in this "multi" category usually have multiple listings in RSP, as they have varied ratings depending on context, date, etc. These get the question mark, since the reliability is usually very context-dependent. We don't actually put any sources here that have had no prior discussion / consensus (or at least, we shouldn't be). I don't see news.com.au in our enRSP list; did you mean skynews.com.au? If so, that's under marginally reliable.
Anywho, I've updated the description for our "multi" category to no longer mention "no consensus" since that's not what the category is actually for. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Okay. At WP:RSP it says that "The source is marginally reliable". A question mark is a negative. It places a doubt in the reader's mind, and that's not fair. In principle, all sources are used "depending on context".
News.com.au is not listed.
Oh, I see the source of my confusion. This is the talk page for our RSP sources. Those domains you highlight, however, seem to be mostly coming from the ratings from en:Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol_source_guide, which lists many more sources as "no consensus". These domains are listed at Meta:Cite Unseen/sources/enNPPSG/2. In those cases, I think the question mark is an appropriate signal; if prior discussion wasn't about to come to a consensus on the reliability, then there is some level of doubt about the reliability of the source and is likely context-dependent. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

In my experience, the ones listed here at Meta with a question mark that says "no consensus" when one hovers over it, is not mentioned at all on the WP:RSP page. No mention there is usually a good thing, unless it's an obscure source rarely used. -- Valjean (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

When you hover over the icon, the description starts with the name of the list the reliability rating is coming from (not all the reliabilty ratings come from RSP). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
My bad. I thought they did. So there are two different standards at Wikipedia? That's confusing. -- Valjean (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think I'd call them different standards per se. It's just that several WikiProjects have their own independent source reliability lists, and we try, for better or worse, to map these lists to our single set of reliabilty icons. In the context of RSP, "no consensus" designations come after substantial discussion that didn't conclude in a "generally unreliable" designation, but still had enough doubt or concern to justify the yellow exclamation mark. NPPSG's "no consensus" category is more mixed. Sometimes it reflects a full RSN discussion that ends without clear consensus, but in other cases it can be based on just one or two editors raising concerns in a narrow context. The question mark is the closest icon category we have, since it signals that there's some uncertainty about the source's reliability that may be worth checking out. That said, I can see the argument that the icon (or any icon at all) might not be appropriate for these, given how little it can take for a source to land in NPPSG's "no consensus" bucket. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
@Valjean, @SuperHamster: I haven't read through all the archives (too many threads!), but I guess the merged " No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" is a recent development on enRSP. You can see on zh:WP:RSP that they still differenciate " marginal reliable" and " no consensus." Also, enNPPSG seems to be the place for one-time discussions and inconclusive discussions, and it still has the "no consensus" category. We also need to consider that " no consensus" is still a thing on multiple WikiProjects. Therefore, let's just leave them be. SuperGrey (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Well.... would someone please place The Guardian in the "generally reliable" category here (where it is at enRSP) so it doesn't have that "no consensus" question mark? -- Valjean (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Valjean: The Guardian receives the question mark because while the proper news reporting is considered generally reliable, their blogs are in the "marginally reliable" category on RSP. There's no way to distinguish the blogs from the non-blogs from the URL, so we cannot easily distinguish them. So it gets the question mark since the actual category is unknown and the reader will have to look closer. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The Paper

Latest comment: 7 months ago14 comments5 people in discussion

It looks like the en:The Paper (newspaper) is not categorized as a state-owned outlet and is also categorized as "reputable news organization" for some reason. This state media outlet should probably be categorized as similar peers are such as en:WP:CHINADAILY or en:WP:XINHUA. - Amigao (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

In reality, en:The Paper (newspaper) is not strictly a state-owned media outlet. Instead, it's a new media outlet under the en:Shanghai United Media Group(SUMG), which is supervised and sponsored by the Shanghai Municipal Party Committee. en:Jiefang Daily, also part of the same newspaper group, is strictly state-owned, and its official website, en:Shangguan News, is also considered part of the state-owned media landscape.
If we examine the equity structure of Shanghai Oriental Newspaper Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of The Paper, its majority shareholder, SUMG, holds nearly 75% of the shares. SUMG is a public institution and is definitely a state-owned enterprise.
It's also worth discussing the differences between public institutions and state-owned enterprises in China. Public institutions don't have an equity structure; they are established by state agencies or other organizations using state-owned assets for social welfare purposes. State-owned enterprises, on the other hand, can be categorized into many types, and not all equity is required to be state-owned.
Thus, under Chinese law, Shanghai Oriental Newspaper Co., Ltd., with over 50% state-owned shares, is considered a state-owned enterprise. However, unlike the Jiefang Daily (the official media representing Shanghai), China Daily (the official media representing China) and Xinhua News Agency (a public institution representing China), although Shanghai Oriental Press Co., Ltd. is a state-owned enterprise under the Shanghai Municipal Government, The Paper is a market-oriented media with an official background, which cannot be completely the same as the first three. Cygz (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
So it's still en:state media that is wholly owned and operated by a en:state-owned enterprise that is itself controlled by the en:Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. Thus, it should be categorized properly as state media. - Amigao (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for detailed and informative reasoning from you both! I am considering categorizing this as "government" + "news." And to be consistent, I plan to add other state media like BBC to the "government" list. What do you think? Ping @Amigao, @Cygz. SuperGrey (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, SuperGrey. A "government" category makes perfect sense but I don't see any en:WP:RSN discussion that would remotely support it being labeled as "reputable news organization" per se. - Amigao (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
There is an entry on zh:WP:RSP. TLDR of the RSP entry: The Paper is categorized as “generally reliable” for non-political topics, and “marginal reliable” for political topics. Note that The Paper also hosts third-party accounts that post articles (UGC, though the “users” are limited to verified newspaper organizations). The reliability of those articles is dependent on the accounts, and are otherwise “generally unreliable.” SuperGrey (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't agree with giving the BBC the government label. There are a few core factors at play, including ownership, funding, and editorial control. The state media tag should convey not just when a news organization is owned and/or funded by the government, but when the government has relatively strong editorial control. In the case of the BBC, it receives funding through the government, but is a separate public coorporation and makes a point of being editorially independent. There have of course been incidents over the last century on independent coverage, but I don't think it rises to the point of warranting the government label. I can't speak on The Paper without looking more into it, but I'd expect the same test to apply there. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
@Cygz: What do you think of this? I'm not familiar with The Paper or any other state-affiliated media in China, so I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell the difference between The Paper and BBC. SuperGrey (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Judging by government editorial control, The Paper is indeed state-owned media, and its shareholding structure supports this. As for the BBC, its primary funding comes from television licenses, not direct government funding, unlike state-owned media in China. Therefore, the BBC cannot be classified as government media. --Cygz (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Thank you for explaining! Do you think there are other state-own media from outside China that needs to be classified as "government" sources? SuperGrey (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
OMG, this is too difficult for me. Please find someone else to help with this project😂. Cygz (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I think YouTube provided a great example of it - they labels state media and public boardcast service in a different information, rather than a vague "government" label. Saimmx (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
In China, there's no such thing as "Public broadcast" like how the BBC runs. Think about the PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) and the VOA (Voice of America) in the USA - all media owned by the Chinese government (People's Daily, CCTV, and maybe all media assigned in China) are the VOA rather than the PBS.
@Cygz: If you have trouble telling the difference between the PBS and the VOA, have a look on zh:维基百科:受資助與受控制 in Chinese Wikipedia.
For a record, I believe that the VOA should tag the government label, while the PBS should not. Further, we can maybe consider creating a new public broadcast label, just like how YouTube did to the VOA and the PBS. Saimmx (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Also ping our other most diligent zhwp RSN contributors @Saimmx, @Olaf8940, and @Steven Sun for more inputs. SuperGrey (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

<state>.us

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

We should add <state>.us TLDs to our government category (see en:.us#States_and_territories for more info) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

May need to list all <state>.us first. Could be a long list. SuperGrey (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Here are the 50 state delegated second-level domains:

Here are some other goverment sites:

SuperGrey (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I have updated the "government" list. I also added some Canadian government sites. SuperGrey (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

news.sina.cn

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion


臺灣象象 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

那個新聞的作者是《新京報》，人家把自己的新聞放在新浪而已。有點像是太報之於Line Today那樣。這種情況下，應該以《新京報》本身的可靠度討論。我不是很確定新浪是否該歸為「社群新聞」或「用戶生成內容」。
Note: "社群新聞" literately means "community news" while the news's author is The Beijing News - they just posted their news on Sina News. I am not sure if that's the reason Sina News should listed on community, and the reliability of The Beijing News. Saimmx (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I feel like Sina should be considered a "platform" instead. Currently we don't have such category though. SuperGrey (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

gnn.gamer.com.tw

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Gommeh (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gommeh: Thank you! Done. SuperGrey (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

People's Daily

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here is another en:People's Daily domain to be added to Cite Unseen. Thanks! - Amigao (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Amigao: Done. Thank you for catching this domain! SuperGrey (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

n1info.rs

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Vacant0 (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

blic.rs

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Vacant0 (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

danas.rs

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Vacant0 (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

beta.rs

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Vacant0 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

nova.rs

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Vacant0 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

tanjug.rs

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Vacant0 (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

vreme.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Vacant0 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

balkaninsight.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Vacant0 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

beograd.rs

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Vacant0 (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Done: Added to Meta:Cite Unseen/sources/influence#government. SuperGrey (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

fonet.rs

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Vacant0 (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. @Vacant0: Thank you! These domains are now listed under Meta:Cite Unseen/sources/type#Serbia media. If you found other domains you want to include, feel free to add them there (together with links and notes). SuperGrey (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

kankanews.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Nanhuajiaren (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Confirmed "news" + "government"。請看看 中維可靠來源告示板，現在在此處公示，等公示期結束後會一併加入。 SuperGrey (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

j.021east.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Nanhuajiaren (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Confirmed "news" + "government"。請看看 中維可靠來源告示板，現在在此處公示，等公示期結束後會一併加入。 SuperGrey (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

epaper.zhoudaosh.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Nanhuajiaren (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Confirmed "news" + "government"。@Nanhuajiaren：請看看 中維可靠來源告示板，現在在此處公示，等公示期結束後會一併加入。 SuperGrey (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

comic.qq.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


JuneAugust (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@JuneAugust: Done. We are considering giving this website a new category, e.g., "aggregator". But anyway, "news" category is fine for now. SuperGrey (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

tribunnewswiki.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

LBLaiSiNanHai (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Assuming it's a reputable news organization, we could add most of the sites under the en:Tribun Network. Tribun News Wiki, however, seems to be mostly profiles about new and upcoming films? This might not be a good fit under the news category. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 11:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

rp.pl

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The website of a renowned centre-right Polish daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita, one of the most frequently cited by Polish media (see https://www.imm.com.pl/baza-wiedzy/aktualnosci/onet-najbardziej-opiniotworczym-medium-sierpnia-spory-awans-kanalu-zero-wsrod-portali/). Ironupiwada (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. @Ironupiwada: Thank you! Do you know more Polish newspapers? Welcome to add them in Meta:Cite Unseen/sources/type#Polish media. SuperGrey (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@SuperGrey I have added gazetaprawna.pl (en:Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, a law-focused newspaper) and pb.pl (en:Puls Biznesu, an economic newspaper being a Polish counterpart of The Economist or The Wall Street Journal). Ironupiwada (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

paper.wenweipo.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


JuneAugust (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

ent.china.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


JuneAugust (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Done: added to the "government" category instead. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

climate.ec.europa.eu

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is a government website as part of the European Comission -- europa.eu could cover the full Commission Sadads (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. SuperGrey (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

brookings.edu

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


WeWake (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Already done. Seems to be already listed in "advocacy." SuperGrey (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

jsonline.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Well-regarded Wisconsin newspaper Jenny8lee (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Artemis-Verl.

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion


Elias Ziade (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Elias Ziade: The "books" icon is already present next to the Artemis-Verl. entry, no? SuperGrey (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
@SuperGrey that's correct, my bad. Elias Ziade (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

book.douban.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


JuneAugust (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@JuneAugust: Thank you for letting me know about this bug. I have come up with a fix to the bug, and the patch is pending review. SuperGrey (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

tennessean.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Tennessean RayScript (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Done ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

nbcbayarea.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


RayScript (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Done ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

thedailyrecord.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Maryland Daily Record seems like news. It's cited on over 100 pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=100&offset=100&profile=default&search=%22Maryland+Daily+Record%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 RayScript (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

news.bloomberglaw.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion


RayScript (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@RayScript: I'm not very sure about this one, so I asked on en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Bloomberg Law News. SuperGrey (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
It seems that the RSN folk believes in this source. I'll just wait a bit for a more concrete consensus, then update the source list. SuperGrey (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

papers.ssrn.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

seems SSRN is considered unreliable? RayScript (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they are. See en:WP:RSP.
However, it doesn't show up when SSRN param is also used, which could be a bug. I'll work on fixing that later. SuperGrey (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

publishersweekly.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


RayScript (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

sfstandard.com

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


RayScript (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Beijing Review

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The en:Beijing Review should be categorized as a state-owned source. - Amigao (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Done: "bjreview.com.cn" is already there, so I added "bjreview.com" to the source lists, matching their positions. @Amigao: Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

sf.streetsblog.org

Latest comment: 6 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Streetsblog sf and it's sister sites (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPlans) have editorial oversight for their news but it's also advocacy so perhaps worth a tag. It's used on over 75 english wikipedia articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_366#Streetsblog RayScript (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it matters they use various subdomains for the different regions (which have different editors). Here's the full list https://nyc.streetsblog.org/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/ https://cal.streetsblog.org/ https://la.streetsblog.org/ https://sf.streetsblog.org/ https://mass.streetsblog.org/ https://chi.streetsblog.org/
Also thanks for making this tool and adding these. Maybe one day I'll learn how to add them but I haven't read the documentation enough to be confident yet. RayScript (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
These sub-domains seem to be well covered by one main domain streetsblog.org.
Adding sources are actually easy -- just write in the formats like this:
* {{CULink |url= streetsblog.org }} — ''[[en:Streetsblog|Streetsblog]]''
The only thing that matters is a correctly filled {{CULink}} template under a valid h3 header (e.g., "news"). Anything else, including the * list format, the h4 headers, and various notes, are just our ways of organizing it to make the source lists more understandable.
Feel free to edit all the source lists if you are sure about the sources you want to add~ Best, SuperGrey (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Is there a delay between it being added and showing up on articles? Or another reason why it still shows up as an "unknown link" for this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Bike_Share RayScript (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The revisions used in the Cite Unseen is hosted on cite-unseen-revids which we manually update regularly. The source lists also have a cache that refreshes every six hours. So it's actually a combination of two security measures. SuperGrey (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Additional URL for Voice of America

Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

- Amigao (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Done: added to "government" and "enRSP". @Amigao: Thank you!
By the way, you are more than welcomed to directly modify these source lists in cases like this, if there is no need for a discussion.
WikiProject-curated source lists under Meta:Cite Unseen/sources, are to our best effort, updated regularly to mirror their origins; therefore, we sincerely welcome everyone to edit those pages whenever the original lists get updated.
I also welcome you to directly modify the Cite Unseen community-curated source lists, as I see you have a clear vision on how they are curated and what are the standards. SuperGrey (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks but for some reason the tag does not seem to appear for a cite for www.voachinese.com at en:High-level black. - Amigao (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
See this message. We have two security measures to prevent disruption in case some edits broke the user script. Now it shall be updated on your end as well. SuperGrey (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

standard.co.uk

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/immigration-and-births-to-nonbritish-mothers-pushes-british-population-to-record-high-6816318.html
  • Date: 2008-08-21
  • Publisher/Journal: London Evening Standard
  • Found on: en:United Kingdom
  • Suggested categories: tabloid(s)

Evening Standard is a tabloid newspaper, similar to Daily Mirror. 11WB (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. @11WB: Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Two government sources

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Two Chinese government-affiliated URLs, en:qinghistory.cn and en:tibetology.ac.cn, should probably be tagged as such. This script is absolutely amazing, by the way. Keep up the fantastic work! - Amigao (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. @Amigao: Thank you for your kind words! SuperGrey (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

visitflorida.org

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Visit Florida is the state's tourism board The Grid (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

floridamemory.com

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Quoted from the website: "Florida Memory is a digital outreach program providing free online access to select archival records from collections housed in the State Library and Archives of Florida. Florida Memory digitizes materials that illuminate the state's history and culture." The Grid (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. @The Grid: Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

hmdb.org

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to its Wikipedia article, it's user-generated content. lp0 on fire () 15:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. @Lp0 on fire: Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

atlasobscura.com

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This source is reliable per WP:AOARTICLES. Raydann (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

If it's the articles, perhaps "https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles" is the better target. The Grid (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Done: added atlasobscura.com/articles. @Raydann & The Grid: Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

tunefind.com

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Tunefind is a community-based website Yxngtrxll (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. @Yxngtrxll: Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

cinemaexpress.com

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The source is reliable as per [1]

AlphaCore (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. @AlphaCore: Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

academic.oup.com

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

牛津大学出版社的链接，常见的学术出版机构 Trz1118 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. @Trz1118: 謝謝🙏 SuperGrey (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

eu-startups.com

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's cited on quite a few articles and seems fairly reliable. RayScript (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Done: added to "news". @RayScript: Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

中央日報

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  • URL: info:sid/zh.wikipedia.org:韓忠謨
  • Date: 1993-10-05
  • Publisher/Journal: 中央日報
  • Found on: zh:韓忠謨
  • Suggested categories: 新聞


人人生來平等 Talk 05:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@人人生來平等: I guess we could mark them as "newspapers" if there are no links presented; noted for further improvement. Thank you for your suggestion! SuperGrey (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
thanks a bunch!-- 人人生來平等 Talk 14:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Advocacy media URLs

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Both almanar.com.lb and alnour.com.lb should be tagged as advocacy groups, as both are media arms of en:Hezbollah. - Amigao (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

yn.xinhuanet.com

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

或可将新华网所有二级域名加以通配符？ Trz1118 (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

感謝指正。此處並非二級域名的問題，而是:80端口後綴沒有被正確處理。鑑於部分網域可能會在不同端口架設不同站點，我手動將xinhuanet.com:80加入到了來源列表中。
(Thank you for your correction. This is not a problem with the second-level domain name, but the :80 port suffix has not been handled correctly. In view of the fact that some domains may set up different sites on different ports, I manually added xinhuanet.com:80 to the source list.) SuperGrey (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

defence-blog.com

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion


lp0 on fire () 12:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Is it actually a "blog" or a news outlet? Judging from their "Our authors" page, it really seems unclear. SuperGrey (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Started a discussion thread on en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Defense Blog. It may help to have a reliability rating as well. SuperGrey (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Done: based on the current consensus, it seems obvious that this goes to the blog category. SuperGrey (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

asiaone.com

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Passing mentions on RSN seem to indicate reliability. lp0 on fire () 11:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

channelnewsasia.com

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Reliable news source per en:RSP. lp0 on fire () 11:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

elitedaily.com

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

w:Elite Daily makes them look, in the words of the very limited RSN discussion, "shady". At best, they're a lifestyle magazine with limited editorial oversight and low quality standards. lp0 on fire () 17:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. @Lp0 on fire: Thank you! By the way, feel free to directly add sources to those lists in the future if you’re confident in your reasoning. SuperGrey (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I assumed it was interface protected or something. In future I'll add them myself when I'm sure. I'll have to learn the syntax though .͡. lp0 on fire () 16:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

ttshow.tw

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Based on the overall reporting style of the site, it's easy to see that it clearly falls within the realm of tabloid. Ren Jian(Talk) 14:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. @人间百态: Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

foodandwine.com

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Well regarded in good and beverage industry. It’s not mainstream news but generally reliable about hospitality and should be categorized somehow

Jenny8lee (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

goodhousekeeping.com

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Originally a magazine. Deserves some kind of categorization for being generally reliable. Jenny8lee (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

inc.com

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Business press. Should be categorized as such? Jenny8lee (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

envir.cn

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

原上海环境热线网站（已关闭多年，该域名目前闲置） Nanhuajiaren (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. @Nanhuajiaren: Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

mylovelybluesky.com

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Trz1118 (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

montsame.mn

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Trz1118 (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

un.org

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

UN……也算政府机构…吧？ Trz1118 (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

或可考虑设计“国际组织”分类？UN、IATA、IUCN什么的还挺常用的。--Trz1118 (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Done. Added several other intergovernmental organization sites to § Intergovernmental organizations. SuperGrey (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

rfi.fr

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Trz1118 (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

libertytimes.com.tw

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

自由时报旧域名，会自动跳转ltn新域名，出于历史原因或有收录必要? Trz1118 (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. 確有必要，所有曾用域名都會收。感謝🙏 SuperGrey (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

arab.news

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can’t speak to how it would do in RSP, but it should be at least categorized as news. Jenny8lee (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SuperGrey (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

spotify.com

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Not sure what the best place to put Spotify is; maybe social media like YouTube, or sponsored because they make their money from people listening to the music? Also, currently Cite Unseen tells me there's "no consensus" at enRSP, but in fact enRSP doesn't mention spotify. lp0 on fire () 15:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I am also not sure what category Spotify is best fitted. "Social media" is mostly for the social media UGC, and "sponsored" is for the sponsored sections on the news outlets (as an additional icon alongside "news").
For the Spotify having "no consensus" description: RSP actually listed Jeff Sneider's Spotify page for "A Hot Mic" a reliable source, so we added a rule for that:
* {{CULink |url= open.spotify.com |author= Jeff Sneider }} — American entertainment journalist.
So when you cite "A Hot Mic", for example[1], you will see it labelled as "generally reliable". And since Spotify has specific rules that applies to specific people, @SuperHamster believes it's beneficial to show a "multi" icon for Spotify, indicating that this site could have additional rules apply.
The source list Cite Unseen/sources/enRSP is manually updated, just like any other source lists. This is the most recent update I just did: Special:Diff/29838624.
P.S. I would greatly appreciate it if the main contributors updating the RSP pages also update our Cite Unseen/sources/enRSP, but I'm not sure if I'm familiar with them enough. Maybe if you are willing, could you help me ask them to do us a favor and take over the updating of Cite Unseen/sources/enRSP? Thanks in advance! SuperGrey (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. I'm not sure I know the main updaters of enRSP well enough to ask that either (if that vhanges I shall certainly ask), but that does sound to me like a task for en:WP:UV's "notify on change" feature. lp0 on fire () 10:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ Sneider, Jeff; Rocha, John (2025-12-19). "Netflix Tightens Grip on WB, SUPERGIRL Test Reactions, AVATAR: Fire and Ash Review - The Hot Mic with Jeff Sneider and John Rocha". The Hot Mic. Retrieved 2025-12-23 – via Spotify. 

bloomberg.com/profile/

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

per w:en:WP:BLOOMBERGPROFILES this shouldn't be showing up as "generally reliable". I'm not sure how to update the reliability categories. lp0 on fire () 17:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Good catch! Yes, the original rule {{CULink |url= bloomberg.com/profile/person }} did not cover the company profiles. I think this instead would cover all profiles: Special:Diff/29844409. SuperGrey (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cite_Unseen/Suggestions/Archive_1&oldid=29907664"