Talk:South Park (Not Suitable for Children): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:46, 2 February 2024

Animation: South Park

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the South Park task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Deprecated sources

Deprecated sources should not be used in Wikipedia for almost any reason whatsoever. You need a justification strong enough that not including it would be an WP:NPOV violation. WP:RSOPINION presumes a reliable source - saying "it's an opinion" cannot override a broad general RFC to deprecate the source.

A review in a deprecated source is profoundly unlikely to pass such a bar, and certainly not just by saying "RSOPINION".

If there is a serious claim of a serious reason for using such sourcing despite its deprecation, it needs to be stated. A talk page WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may not be safe, and it would probably need a convincing argument on WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard There is absolutely nothing in WP:RS or WP:RSOPINION that states that opinions need to presume a reliable source. In fact, just the opposite is true -- the section is under the heading of "Reliability in specific contexts" and directly states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." - SanAnMan (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 22:40, 2 February 2024 edit David Gerard (talk \| contribs) Edit filter managers, Administrators 213,086 edits →Deprecated sources: new section Tag: New topic ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:46, 2 February 2024 edit undo SanAnMan (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 13,069 edits →Deprecated sources: Reply Tag: Reply Next edit →
Line 11:		Line 11:

	If there is a serious claim of a serious reason for using such sourcing despite its deprecation, it needs to be stated. A talk page [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] may not be safe, and it would probably need a convincing argument on [[WP:RSN]] - [[User:David Gerard\|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard\|talk]]) 22:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)		If there is a serious claim of a serious reason for using such sourcing despite its deprecation, it needs to be stated. A talk page [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] may not be safe, and it would probably need a convincing argument on [[WP:RSN]] - [[User:David Gerard\|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard\|talk]]) 22:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

			:@[[User:David Gerard\|David Gerard]] There is absolutely nothing in [[WP:RS]] or [[WP:RSOPINION]] that states that opinions need to presume a reliable source. In fact, just the opposite is true -- the section is under the heading of "Reliability in specific contexts" and directly states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." - [[User:SanAnMan\|SanAnMan]] ([[User talk:SanAnMan\|talk]]) 22:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)