Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Is an author's child a primary or secondary source?

There are some notable cases (Tolkien, Awdry) where an author's canon has been so substantial that their children have taken on the task afterwards of either archiving, critiquing or continuing the original work. Is a reasonably scholarly approach to such, a book such as "My Father's Invented Universe as an Analogy of our Family Holidays" etc. considered as a primary or secondary source?

If such a book was the main work of secondary [sic] comment on the originals, would its use be adequate to support an article on that invented universe at AfD, against a nomination of "all in-universe sourcing"? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That would depend really on context and the author concerned. The Tolkein example, as I recall Christopher Tolkein's supplementary (published) work has all been published by third parties, so his relationship to his father only adds to the material available for him to write about. He would generally be useable as both a primary and/or a secondary source for his father depending on the material. BUT an AFD is about notability not reliability (for the most part) there are perfectly reliable sources that do not indicate notability. A relation (so child) of someone would not be in lots of cases a good indicator of notability due to the inherant bias. Of course this isnt an issue with Tolkein/Awdry as they easily pass any notability test regardless of what their children think. For someone who is borderline notable, if you have to rely that their child has written/been published about them, its probably not a great argument. If its about something other than a biography related to the authors work, it would be highly context dependant. Whats the AFD this is about? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional locations in The Railway Series

No sources, fair enough, so I added the Sibley and the two Awdry books, but it was deleted anyway with no explanation. As all three books are out of print and seriously expensive, I don't have access to copies without driving a few hundred miles. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah I see the problem. At an article level you would need to demonstrate that the individual article 'Fictional locations...' is notable. Which would require independant sources to demonstrate notability. Assuming the book im looking at (Sibley) is the right one, that would probably pass IF there is more than just a passing mention within it. It wouldnt be unsurprising in a biography to compare his fictional creations with the real-world locations etc etc. However not having read the book I couldnt comment on this. RE the two Awdry's, as sources in the article I would see no problem with those, as demonstrator's of notability, I personally would not consider them independant enough to demonstrate the notability of a fictional creation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sibley's book is primarily a biography, but then the railway books themselves are somewhat autobiographical. Particularly for the Skarloey Railway and a little for the Arlesdale Railway, Awdry was writing about the beginnings of the UK steam preservation movement (why his archive is now preserved at Tywyn station). He appears as a character in his own fiction, and the real Talyllyn would later have him posing alongside their engines, dressed as his engines, with an Awdry impersonator filming the whole lot. So yes, at least for these two railways on (the fictional) Sodor, Sibley is covering their real world inspirations and the considerable overlap from reality in the 1950s to the fiction. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course as a list article, you could have 'List of fictional locations' if you had more than a few blue-linked articles for locations from the series. From brief research I can only find Ffarquhar and Sodor itself, which is not really enough. You would have better luck with doing a 'List of fictional lines from The Railway Series' and for each line having a brief list of all the locations served by it. As the individual lines all have stand-alone articles from what I can see, as a list it would pass at AFD unless the individual line articles were also deleted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way in future - the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the right place to discuss questions like this. This talk page is for discussing the noticeboard itself. Dmcq (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually noticed around my 2nd reply, but was too lazy to attempt to move it to RSN proper. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a record keeper on which sources are reliable

I'm wondering if there is a page that is dedicated to which sources are considered reliable after discussing them on the Noticeboard. Something along the lines of how Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources keeps track of which sources are reliable and which aren't for their project. GamerPro64 16:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There can't be, because whether a source is reliable depends on what it is being used for. A local U.S. newspaper for example may be the best source for a local event, but not reliable for science or medical articles. Also, reliability is relative not binary. We should always evaluate the relative reliability of a source, how close to the topic it is and how recent it is. TFD (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Meaning sources can not be banned. But, must be evaluated in context each time. Endercase (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It is, however, possible to decide that certain sources are inherently unreliable as sources for anything. The Onion is one good example. If someone tries to add content to Wikipedia based upon The Onion as a source, the edit should be reverted on sight. This is true whether the citation involves international politics,[1] science,[2] sports,[3] religion.[4] or even Wikipedia.[5] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

[+1] BioPseudo (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Waiting for a close -- is there a way to prevent archiving?

I've requested a formal close for this discussion currently open at RSN. Is there a way of preventing the bot from archiving the threat while the close is pending? Or are there any other solutions that apply to this situation? Any suggestions would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Template:Bump or Template:Do not archive until may be what you're looking for. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Awesome, thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Change to header re searching archives before posting and including search links in posting

Note, I just boldly made this change to the header.

The Daily Mail fiasco was caused in part by people not taking the time to understand to look and see that DM has been rejected consistently on this board as a source for most things (not everything). Likewise there is now a thread about Quackwatch which has also been discussed an enormous amount of times. Consensus is how this place works, and that includes past consensus and continually rehashing discussions just frustrates everyone. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Well done. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Like Herostratus (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Britain in general

Kevin Drum, a pundit and therefore someone with a professional interest and need to know to about this stuff, wrote "This story from the Sunday Times leaves me in a quandary: [excerpt describing an alleged event]... What to think? On the one hand, reporting on items like this from the British press is notoriously unreliable..." (emphasis added).

Is this true? It is true, isn't it? It matches the general vibe I've gotten over the years. It's not a knock on the people of Britain (so I'm not looking for a tribal-solidarity response), just the way things have played out there. Everybody has crappy stuff: The United States has crappy trains and crappy health coverage, Britain has crappy newspapers. It's not just the Daily Mail and the Sun and the News of the World, it's the Telegraph and the Times and the Independent too -- isn't it?

It matters... I'm struggling with a piece of material sourced to The Telegraph (an exclusive, so no other source). I'm a little skeptical. If it was the Washington Post I'd be more confident, but a British paper... not so sure. Am I right about this, or not? Herostratus (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)