This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

At User:SD0001/unreliabe.js.

@Headbomb: You can copy over the changes.

• When I initially wrote this, I mistakenly assumed the code will highlight the whole citation (rather than just the link). Today when I tested this for the first time, I saw this isn't the case. I've made it so now. I think this is desirable?
• I've tweaked the entire structure (clubbed together the regexes with the corresponding CSS styles) which should make this easier to maintain.
• Fixed the bug with "10\.1011\/\d+"
• Now text content of all list items will also be checked. This should be good enough to catch stuff in further reading, bibliography sections. I know you asked for searching the whole page text, but I am not sure whether that is necessary. That is quite complicated to write, and by checking each and every text node on the page with each of the dozen-odd regexes, some of which are huge, I suspect there will be an impact on performance.

I haven't tested this exhaustively so let me know if anything isn't working.

SD0001 (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: I'll test and give some feedback shortly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the original of only highlighting links, mostly because this can allow for more nuance when a reference has multiple links in it, but also because not everything is within <ref></ref> tags. See User:Headbomb/unreliable#Common_non-problematic_cases for example, but you could also have something like citation with url link to Scribd and a DOI. But here only the url to Scribd is problematic. The 1101 thing seems to work, which is weird because I thought I had tried that myself. Either way, very useful to finally have that fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Testing list content might be a good compromise vs whole page however (whole page would still be preferable though). It doesn't work on the last column of User:Headbomb/unreliable/testcases, but it does work in other lists elsewhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: should work now. SD0001 (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, not on that last column. But if you pull that out of the table, it will work. SD0001 (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

That leads to another bug. We need a different regex for matching "/" when it's in a link vs when its in text. Looking into that now. SD0001 (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

fixed. SD0001 (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: Not in the column. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that's also fixed. SD0001 (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: Alright, so that's possibly a framework for some Frankenstein solution. What it would need now is some sort of logic that if there's a link you check the link, since that's better and more targeted. But if there isn't, then check the list. Because right now, it will highlight whole citations that aren't problematic [1], instead of just the link [2]. And this should really only be done as a fallback. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Done. SD0001 (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: That looks really, really promising. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: works well, but numbered lists don't seem to work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: done SD0001 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: yup. And with this, I believe we have a stable script. Many many thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I saw your recent post at WT:MED. I followed the first 3 steps of installation, but now what are the steps to actually using the script on an article? Thanks! Sorry if I missed that somewhere. I scanned things, and it did not appear obvious. I tried a couple different things to bypass the cache (I'm currently using google chrome on a chromebook), so I hope that's not the issue. Also, I'm in the middle of rewriting deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Might you be able to scan DVT for any of the potentially questionable sources / journals / publishers you posted about at WT:MED and post any hits on the DVT talk page to make sure I'm providing high-quality information? Thank you for your efforts here. Biosthmors (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Biosthmors: basically, you just read the page and it should work right away. You can check Science Publishing Group and you should see 3 red highlighted links or User:Headbomb/unreliable/testcases and you should see things working (at least on some of them, I'm still tweaking to expand things to cover more). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's working. I saw 3 pink-highlighted links at Science Publishing Group. Biosthmors (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Biosthmors: In deep vein thrombosis, you should see DOIs that start with 10.2147 (Dove) / 10.4103 (Medknow) / 10.1155 (Hindawi) highlighted in yellow. Keep in mind that those are more grey-area and might even not be problematic to begin with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the yellow color. It's subtle, and I missed the highlighting at first because I was scanning for something more obvious. But I like it because it pairs with the level of concern I have about the sources. (I saw 3 highlighted in yellow at DVT.) I don't have any plans to remove them or recite this material at the present, but thanks again for helping me check this out. Biosthmors (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Totally and utterly awesome. Thank you, Headbomb! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: would there be a way to make use of a JSON-like structure somewhere? Perhaps as a separate subpage?

{
  "Name":    "Publisher",                          // Name of the publisher/journal/website
  "Domains": ["Publisher\.org", "Publisher\.com"], // Regex for URL matches
  "DOI":     ["10\.1234", "10\.4321"],             // Regex for DOI matches
  "Class":   "MEDRS",                              // BL, GUN, PRED, ... to set the CSS classes/colors
  "Note":    "See [[WP:RSPSOURCES#Publisher]]"    // Comment to understand why something is listed, possibly to be displayed as a tooltip
}

(not pretending the above is syntaxically correct, treat this as pseudocode) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that I can build that JSON file myself once I have a working example/the syntax for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I was initially wanting this to simply makes things easier to manage, but it would open up certain possibilities. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, Oh, I would love that. I already have a json file that I use to quickly check on all the online sources in an article. If i could just merge in something like the above in stead of maintaining it myself that would be super! Vexations (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Prototype JSON file at User:Headbomb/unreliable.json. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This largely sounds like a good idea. Regarding the schema you have above, there's no need to put the backslashes before periods (in the domain and DOI fields). These can be inserted by the JS script while constructing the regex expression. Also, I'd say keep the domain and doi fields as arrays only if there are multiple of them (see User:SD0001/unreliable.json). This cuts down on the size of the page, and client scripts can easily convert the single-item to an array for processing should they need it. That being said, I'm no expert in writing good JSON schemas. It'd be useful to get advice from more editors.

The text of the "Note" field can probably be displayed as a hover tooltip when the user mouses over the highlighted text. SD0001 (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, concerning the backlashes, the software keeps throwing "bad strings" errors at me when they aren't there. For the arrays, 2 extra bits seem pretty cheap for code consistency. No real opinion on the rest, as long as it works. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: any progress? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a very nice script. I noticed, though, that there is a little functionality overlap with User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js, which uses a really comprehensive list of conspiracy sites, fake news, biased sites, etc. That same list also has a list of generally reliable sources. Just my two cents, maybe we might also want to ping SuperHamster about this idea as well, since he created the list. epicgenius (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitely something to look at. Thanks for the suggestion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, epicgenius. Headbomb - thrilled to see more work being done in this space! I'm also going to ping @Newslinger: - we've been looking into taking Wikipedia' perennial sources list and creating a structured data format for it all, and then incorporating it into Cite Unseen (and could be used for other tools as well, of course). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. full docs / info about Cite Unseen can be found at m:Cite Unseen. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I saw your post at the DYK talk page; this looks very useful, and I will install it tonight. Would it be possible to tweak the colour used for "marginally reliable" sources slightly; it's just because the pale yellow is very similar to the colour used in another commonly used script to signify Disambiguation pages, and I must admit I've used it for so long I completely associate that colour with Disambiguation pages now! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hassocks5489: I use the same script, but since this doesn't highlight a wikilink, but rather external links and list elements, there's no overlap between the two. There might be customizable colours down the road, but for now this is beyond my coding skills. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and no worries; it won't take long to get used to. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I second the request for color customization. :-) In my case, the yellow is nearly invisible on my screen. Sunrise (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

In response to the request for suggestions, I think it would be valuable to be able to summarize the results we get from the script. In particular, the things that come to mind (if they're possible) are counting the number of links of each type on a particular page, and the ability to categorize pages based on those links. For instance, I'm hoping this could be used to create Category:Articles using predatory journals as sources and equivalents. Sunrise (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sunrise:, see ((Predatory publisher)), which could probably be updated to add categories similar to ((citation needed)). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

With regards to the category idea, I think I wasn't clear enough (for that matter, come to think of it I suppose such a category might already exist!) I was imagining it as something populated automatically instead of by tagging, but I don't know what that would actually involve. I suppose creating and maintaining it would be different issues, but ideally it might create something like a list of all articles (of a particular category?) sorted by number of hits per article, or something along those lines. That said, I think just a count would be useful as well. Sunrise (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well populating automatically can't really be done. A bot report of such sources could be made, similar to WP:CITEWATCH (see a semi-related botreq). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• If you use bullet points while discussing a source in regular text, the script will act on the entire paragraph (as demonstrated here, as long as I mention a source like fb.com). I'm not sure if this is intended, since the documentation mentions checking list items. However, in the case of blacklisted sources the script will create multiple nested boxes if the comment is indented using multiple asterisks. Sunrise (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sunrise: It's intended, but it's not the cutest implementation ever. For instance your above comment is highlighted, because you mention fb.com and have started your comment with a bullet (which makes it a list element), but not this one (because it starts with a colon, meaning it's not in list form). A side effect is that discussion pages can be a bit weird because sources are often discussed and comments often made in list form, but the script does highlight what it's meant to highlight: a list item that mentions a potentially problematic source. It can be weird to see this on talk pages, but I have no good solution to the weirdness. Disabling it on talk pages seems not ideal, given you could be having a discussion about making content based on problematic sources, and then this warns you about it, at least when in external links or bulleted comments.

For the blacklisted source issue, I'd have to see an example. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the reply! Mentioning 112.ua with multi-asterisk indenting. Sunrise (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The technical cause of the issue is each list element does contain the problematic 112.ua, and the script can't (at the moment) figure out to apply things to only the last one. But the weirdness here is also caused by a 2px border being applied 3 times to different element. I'll be doing a bit of thinking. Removing the border should be enough, but that's a bit hackish. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sunrise: see the new look. It will still color all bullet levels, but the underline instead of borders should make things better. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

See #488 and several others at 2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak#References --valereee (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: See WP:RSPSOURCES#Forbes and WP:RSPSOURCES#Forbes contributors. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, hm...Forbes is good, but Forbes.com is sometimes suspect. But of course most of what is covered in Forbes is going to get released on Forbes.com, too, and the script doesn't know how to tell them apart. How annoying is that! :D --valereee (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Headbomb! See Sentientist Politics bibliography section Johannsen -- it's getting a highlight from the script, but it's an academic journal? --valereee (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: See User:Headbomb/unreliable#Common cleanup and non-problematic cases, general repositories. In this case, the linked version happens to be a preprint. No really super problematic, but if it's used as a source, you'll want to confirm that it's not substantially different from the published version Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, I am learning quite a lot from this script and you! :D --valereee (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not very reliable as source, but most of the time I see it in articles it's the entry of that movie/person/whatever in the weblinks, where the link is perfectly fine. Is it possible to filter that out somehow? --mfb (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Mfb, you mean in an External links section? I actually find the highlighting useful even there, as if there are multiple external links, sometimes the IMDb link represents excessive external linking and can be culled if the other more reliable sites provide essentially the same information. --valereee (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in that section. If IMDb has an entry about that person/movie... then it's good to have that in the article. --mfb (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't filter by section. Also see the bit about external links in User:Headbomb/unreliable#Common cleanup and non-problematic cases. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised at a recent GA review (Coronariae) to see two sources that I consider reliable, flagged.

• ResearchGate - whatever you think of their practices, the research papers they provide access to are clearly reliable
• Zenodo, an open access project of CERN

I can't see how either of these could be considered unreliable - should they be excluded? --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised by this, too. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see you have already responded on the talk page, thanks --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll copy-paste my reply from Talk:Coronariae/GA1 here so others with the same question can find this.

See WP:UPSD#Common cleanup and non-problematic cases, "General repositories" for your answer. Basically RG and Zenodo is user-uploaded and has no filtering system, so will often host preprints and articles from predatory journals. Hence why the links are in pale yellow (meaning double check, rather than probably problematic).

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dank and Michael Goodyear: doing a deeper review, I did find some predatory publishers on Coronariae though (http://www.cibtech.org/index.htm), so you might want to update the article (should be trivial, since two refs back the same fact, just use the non-predatory one and remove the other). The script will now pick that one up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, please sync with User:SD0001/unreliable.js.

Improvement made: now when you hover over any link/list item highlighted by the script, you are told why the highlighting has been done ("Deprecated source", "Blacklisted source", "Source that traditionally fails WP:MEDRS, but could be used for other more routine claims", etc). Should alleviate the concerns raised in the previous section. Also, now users will not need to memorise the color codes (or refer to the documentation too often).

SD0001 (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: Done, thanks. Opens up a lot of possibilities for more categories and better advice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I really like how your script works Headbomb as it finds sources hidden in plain sight that are not reliable. I want to ask a logistics question -- is there guidance for how to remove sources or claims or text that cites these sorts of sources that are blacklisted or deprecated? I imagine this has to be done on a case by case basis, but am wondering if there is a checklist or other steps that are recommended for dealing with those that may be used. Thanks. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@FULBERT: I'm not aware of any specific guidance. I mostly use common sense. If the claim is plausible, I simply replace the source with ^{[citation needed]} [unless it's part of multiple sources for the same thing, in which case I just remove it]. If it's MEDRS/BLP related, I remove the passage entirely. If it's one of those indiscriminate list of publications, I usually remove the entirely list, because those are typically WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTCV violations anyway. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, Thanks; this is an area of editing I have not done much with so will follow your guidance the next time I see something red or black in this way. Appreciate the suggestions. FULBERT (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources such as the following paper hosted at oaji.net are flagged as "Misleading journal metric"—red, but a different shade than generally unreliable. I am having trouble finding out what it means in terms of reliability. Is it a synonym of predatory journal, and if so, can we have an explanation on User:Headbomb/unreliable#What it does?

• Šmigeľ, Michal (2017). "Anti-Semitism in Slovakia in Post-War Years 1945 – 1948: A Period of "Common People's Anti-Semitism"" (PDF). Population Processes. 2 (1). doi:10.13187/popul.2017.2.35. ((cite journal)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

(The paper is listed as further reading at Partisan Congress riots—it duplicates information that is available in a less dodgy Slovak-language publication by the same author.) buidhe 14:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: http://oaji.net/ is the Open Academic Journal Index, which mostly exists to be an indiscriminate repository of journals which publishes bunk journal metrics (e.g. fake impact factors or similar). It's not a good sign when a journal is in those index, but the issue flagged here is the index itself. The journal may be problematic too, but I'll dig around some more to see if there's a way to tweak things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I've replaced the link with [3] instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I've just been reminded of a "publisher" of public domain texts that sells them on Amazon etc. They are not reliable sources; anyone can cobble together unvetted PD text and try to sell it. With no editorial oversight to speak of, they are "self-published". So I'm wondering if you can add "Delphi Classics" as an unreliable publisher. Here is a blog I found that details some issues.[4] And yeah, there are some uses of these books on Wikipedia (search). Thanks! Outriggr (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Outriggr: I've added delphiclassics.com, but keep in mind that it won't find |publisher=Delphi Classics, but rather only the ones that have a link to the website. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Outriggr: Searches will find you a bunch of them however. See Delphi Classics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Headbomb, first off thank you for this script, it is very useful. However, it looks like there might be a malfunction. I'm seeing the entire Main Page highlighted red, including TFA, ITN, and On This Day. Just wanted to make sure you're aware. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• I just came to mention this, too - a few minutes ago, anything in a bullet list or within certain templates (including list and all ref templates) are now in red. Kingsif (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@LuK3 and Kingsif: sorry I missed this and didn't reply earlier. You just happened to view Wikipedia in a 2 minute window where I screwed up the script. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have a couple of text highlighting scripts now that are always on, is there a way to turn it off/on via the tools sidebar now? I didn't see an option at a glance (haven't installed it yet). I would love if I could easily flip it on when I am source reviewing and have it off in general, in case that is not a current feature, and in case that is easy to install, but I get it if others don't want it to function like that :). Kees08 (Talk) 16:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I bet most people would not want this feature, and I can't think of any easy way to implement it, but I will leave the request in case you are more creative than me. Kees08 (Talk) 17:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but maybe SD0001 (talk · contribs) has an idea here. Maybe a sort of Ctrl+Shift+U key press combo could toggle on and off, but I'm not sure it's possible. As a note, I have a few text highlighting scripts myself (including Anomie's link classifier), and there doesn't seem to be any problem using many at once here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You can set up the script to load on-demand:

$.when(mw.loader.using('mediawiki.util'), $.ready).then( function() {
    var link = mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', '#', 'UPSD', '#t-upsd', 'Highlight unreliable sources', 'U');
    link.addEventListener('click', function(e) {
        e.preventDefault();
        importScript('User:Headbomb/unreliable.js');
    });
});

Maybe we should offer this as an option in the core script, but until then you can put the above in your common.js, instead of the standard importScript('User:Headbomb/unreliable.js'); line. Clicking on the "UPSD" option (or using the keypress Alt+Shift+U or Alt+U) turns on the higlightings. To turn them off, just reload the page and they'll go. SD0001 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

How splendid, this does fine for me. I will add this to my article review toolkit. If it ever becomes a feature just hit me with a ping if you remember, otherwise this works for me. Kees08 (Talk) 14:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, on Wikipedia:Citation expander the whole section "1." explaining the 2 methods that can be used is marked in bright red as a predatory journal. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Redalert2fan: From testing the page with the Preview function, it looks like the script is picking up the example DOI parameter:

• ((cite journal |doi=10.1234/ABC123))

I would guess that this specific DOI corresponds to a flagged source, so it would need to be replaced with a different example. I changed it to 10.1000/ABC123 and it stopped the script from activating. Sunrise (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sunrise, Yes that seems to have been the problem, Thanks for changing it! Redalert2fan (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making this! I just noticed that Facebook was not listed as an unreliable source. buidhe 14:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: that's mostly because it wasn't listed in WP:RSPSOURCES. But it's clearly twitter-like, so I'll add it to the generally unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done [5] Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, YouTube is marked as unreliable but similar sites Vimeo, twitch.tv, and Dailymotion are not. Could they also be added? buidhe 03:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup, easily.  Done Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Be still, my beating heart. If they won't build it, happy to use this instead. Thank you! czar 23:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Two different regexes (first one is from COIBot, second is from edit filter 1045, to catch blogs and self-published websites, thought it might be worth tweaking/combining them and adding them to the generally-unreliable list:

• \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.(com|in)\b
• \b(angelfire|blogger|blogspot|geocities|livejournal|rootsweb|wordpress)\.\w{2,3}

Maybe rearrange them to something like this:

• \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall|ger)?\.\w{2,3}
• \b(angelfire|geocities|livejournal|rootsweb|wordpress)\.\w{2,3} already  Done

creffett (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: Sorry I somehow missed this for a month+. I think most of those are already covered, but I'll double check to make sure I haven't missed a few. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Headbomb (and other watchers) - how practical would it be to add support for user-added custom rules? JS isn't a language I'm great at (and I don't know the MediaWiki API), otherwise I'd suggest specific changes, but I'd imagine it working something like this:

• User creates User:USERNAME/unreliable-rules.js, which would contain JSON formatted the same as the rules var. Handmade for now, could eventually create a script to help with it.
• Script checks for existence of User:USERNAME/unreliable-rules.js, if it exists append the unreliable-rules.js rules to the rules var (this way the built-ins take precedence in case you have a custom entry which later gets added to the main module).
  • Maybe also have some kind of sanity checking when adding the rules? i.e. make sure that the comment, css, and regex fields exist before pushing the rule into the rules list.
• Everything else should be plug-and-play.

Thoughts? creffett (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably a question more for @SD0001: than me. Although if you have specific sources that are crap, it's probably a good idea to let me know here (or WP:RSN) so everyone can benefit from them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I actually went ahead and put something together (apparently my JS isn't quite as bad as I thought...just don't look too much at the number of revisions I went through). You can see my changes at User:Creffett/unreliable.js - basically it looks for User:USERNAME/unreliable-rules.js and tries to load an array named unreliableCustomRules (formatted the same way as the existing rules var) and merge that into the rules list. Did some basic testing on it and it seems to work as expected. creffett (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: synced. Please add instructions somewhere in User:Headbomb/unreliable for how to add custom rules. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There were a couple of small issues with the javascript. I've fixed these up in User:SD0001/unreliable.js. Please sync it. The explanations are in the latest few edit summaries should Creffett be interested. SD0001 (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Can this handy tool identify any source without URL and DOI to see if it is a reliable source? For example, Adaptive_behavior#cite_ref-Heward_1-0? If such a feature has not added yet, I would recommend to folks that consider adding it! Thank you. --I am pleased to meet you (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

In theory it's possible. In practice you need a very rigorous string (series of characters) that won't match everything else. For example, if you just quote with "Heward" to find that author, you'll find every other author named "Heward". So that would be an example of what a bad pattern would be. It's also something that could grow to be very very hard to maintain in the long run. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

In practice you need a very rigorous string (series of characters) that won't match everything else. "Title" seems to be viable? In this case, the title is Exceptional Children. I am pleased to meet you (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Exceptional Children is a journal, not even an article's title. That source must be problematic. I gonna take it down. I am pleased to meet you (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a string that appears in several articles [6] and in several unrelated citations/journals/titles, like Teaching Exceptional Children. So that would be an example of a bad string. It's very hard to match on generic sounding titles without causing more issues than you solve. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thank you for your detailed explanation. Also, I am impressed by your forethought. Cheers! I am pleased to meet you (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this script, and thanks also to User:SD0001, User:Jorm User:creffett. It is very handy. -- Colin°^Talk 20:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering if you could add the websites listed at Wikipedia:Record_charts#Websites_to_avoid. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Could... at what level should those be highlighted? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say Generally unreliable but I didn't create the list. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven L. Tuck, the first comment (by P Aculeius) is colored entirely pink for me, despite no markup to that effect and despite no external links within it. I think it must be this script, because it doesn't happen not-logged-in. Any idea what might be triggering this? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It sees "Amazon.com" Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we really be highlighting that when it is not part of a url? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

See User:Headbomb/unreliable#Limitations, with the second Deprecated.com example (and third bullet in the nutshell banner). Not highlighting it would mean missing out on many 'manual' citations to crap sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd also argue that the script is working as intended here, given the comment is "there are some blurbs from reviews of his History of Roman Art on Amazon.com" and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Generally unreliable:Amazon specifically mentions user reviews as being unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The intent would have been a lot clearer if it highlighted only the "Amazon.com" text and not the whole paragraph. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

For sure, but apparently that's not really feasible for technical reasons I don't understand. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, can you add rt.com per WP:RSP#RT (or what's your procedure for choosing what to add)? czar 02:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It's already there? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll move it from generally unreliable to deprecated however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Huh, sorry about that. I might have been looking at a diff, which appears to not load the script czar 22:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Czar: Works for me there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Huh. Strange. Working for me too but it definitely wasn't before... Thanks czar 20:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

royalark.net, thepeerage.com, worldstatesmen.org - all noew deprecated. Also 4dw.net/royalark, which is the actual host for royalark. Thanks! Guy (help!) 18:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, thanks Guy (help!) 21:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed that RSP currently lists Jezebel as marginally reliable and has upgraded PinkNews to generally reliable (as of yesterday). Both are flagged by this script as generally unreliable; could this be updated? Armadillopteryx 14:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

PinkNews just went through RSN, and was closed and archived yesterday. Yes, this would need updating. Normal Op (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Armadillopteryx 18:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

blogspot.com (Blogger) should be added as generally unreliable per WP:RSP. I see that the script includes blogger.com but not blogspot.com. Most blogs on the site use the blogspot.com domain I think. SD0001 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I have on several occasion missed that a source was a *.weebly.com domain, which is a free website creator cited both by well meaning editors (it often hosts school projects) and up-and-coming rappers. Would be helpful to add. (I may also have begun relying too much on this script ) – Thjarkur (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Þjarkur: Sure, I'll add it. Marked as generally unreliable since it's equivalent to a bloghost. Feel free to bring up to the RSN though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I am seeing https://www.latimes.com/ links in red. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not... so... do you have a link to a page where this happens? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If you mean Talk:Andy Ngo, it's highlighting a mention of Quillette.com. See WP:UPSD#Limitations for an explanation and workaround. Basically, use Quillete[dot]com in the quote. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Great script by the way! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001 and Oshwah:, is there a way to externalize the CSS rules, with mine being default, but so someone was able to override them with their own? That would prevent forks like User:Oshwah/UnreliableSourceHighlighter.js, which haven't kept up with the most recent sources covered. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb! The reason I forked this script wasn't to steal any code or steal credit or anything of that sort. :-)I did this so that I could customize the colors in a way where I could register different levels of unreliability of the sources without having to look at the documentation each time. Have there been changes to the code that I need to be aware of? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Well, that's a bit the point of externalization; it would let you customize the colours as you want, without having to update the sources covered every time I did. For the changes, look at [7], which is the difference between your version and mine. You can copy-paste over any line start with regex: that changed, and we'll be in sync. Until the next time I update the sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see! You want to make variables that users can set in their common.js, vector.js, etc in order to customize those colors! I think that's a great idea! I'd be totally on board! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It's possible of course. We should probably have three different files: a JSON (for storing the data in a very easy-to-edit form), a CSS (for holding the styles) and a JS (which provides the core logic and binds everything together). – SD0001 (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In theory a JSON sounds nice... and allow for things to be re-used in other scripts. In practice, it would likely explode the size of the script because JSON is really not an efficient format. Would be open to exploring it though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The website, Ultimate Guitar should be highlighted yellow. The music source list lists Ultimate Guitar as a reliable source but cautions editors to only cite articles that are either written by the UG Team, one of their staff members, or authors with credentials to other reliable sources like Rolling Stone. That would make the website only marginally reliable. Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lazman321: Since I'm not really familiar with the topic, I'd rather be able to point out to an RSN discussion with consensus it's problematic enough to be worth highlighting. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Okay. This discussion reached a consensus to only cite articles written by the UG Team or members of it. This discussion reached a consensus that if the author isn't a staff member, but has credentials to other reliable sources, the article can be cited. Lazman321 (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, maybe it'd be a good idea to add Appspot, Heroku, and Google Sites domains to unreliable's rules? They're all free-to-use web hosts, and the chances of them containing anything good is about zero. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Moonythedwarf: There's a often good stuff on those, but I agree they should be flagged in yellow at the very least. I'm a bit busy today, but find me a list of domains and I'll add it to the script. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I was doing a bit of cleanup and discovered that Physics Essays has published papers claiming to derive spacetime from consciousness, that energy conservation refutes relativity, that relativistic length contraction is a logical contradiction, and so forth. It should probably be marked as an unreliable journal. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to second that request. I just removed a section [8] from Double-slit experiment claiming that collapse was caused by consciousness, which was based on a paper published in Physics Essays. Tercer (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I also support this request. Such absurd claims are hampering the progress of science.Guswen (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I added PhysicsEssays.org as a 'borderline source', but since there's no DOI for them (AFAICT), the script will miss a lot of it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Upgraded to Generally Unreliable. No way these papers could ever have passed any meaningful peer review process. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks. The papers do have DOIs, although they are well-hidden. For example [9]. Tercer (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I also found their ((doi|10.4006)) prefix, and added them to WP:CITEWATCH (they'll show up tomorrow). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Another winner: A parallel nonphysical universe containing dreams, thoughts, emotions, and memories [...] based on dark matter [10]. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting similar script. – SD0001 (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, although I feel that one is fundamentally ... misguided is too harsh a word, but something along those veins. Going "New York Times? That's green, therefore reliable!" forgets all the times NYT isn't reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb, could you please add sptnkne.ws to the list of deprecated sources? It's an URL shortener for sputniknews.com. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Sure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering if you could add the unreliable sources to your script from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Unreliable_sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Unreliable_sources. The albums one has more details in that section explaining why several of the sources arent reliable. With About.com (now Dotdash), it's selective critics that are not reliable, but some critics from that site are fine to use. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources/About.com Critics Table. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely possible, the main issue I have is how wide is the consensus that those are unreliable (across Wikipedia, not just for videogame content)? But also that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Generally unreliable sources doesn't have the websites listed, meaning it would take me a few hours to track everything, and compare against WP:RSPSOURCES. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There's some overlap with RSP (i.e. IMDB, HuffPost contributors, Forbes.com contributors) etc. Maybe a separate section would be more suitable like Unreliable sources per Wikiproject? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That could be a thing. All someone needs to do is to make use of this to add their own specific rules. This could be maintained by someone from the project, and then shared with other project members. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The edit summary does not indicate why, but GameSpot, which is on the VGRS list as reliable, was recently added as generally unreliable.

Please fix. Izno (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll tweak to yellow later tonight. It was added because there a GameSpot hosted database where information is user-submitted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Tweaked, it should only match gamefaqs.gamespot.com now. gamespot.com will be in yellow, to double-check that the article is staff-authored, and not user-submitted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

WFM. Izno (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb, could you remove Film Music Reporter from the script? A recent discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard has found the website to be reliable, as they appear to simply state press releases from industry insiders. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they found the website reliable. It's still a self-published blog. See also Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide's comments about it. But I'll mark in yellow instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice tool! Something like this should be standard for every new editor to help with identifying reliable sources. The only thing that isn't very transparent is the source for the lists of sources you use. You state it's WP:RSPSOURCES, Predatory open access source list, and WP:CITEWATCH, with some minor differences. If the minor differences could be removed/clarified and direct use of those lists could be achieved then it would be reasonable to propose a wider adoption of this tool as it would reflect exactly the consensus of the community without any kind of filter. It would save a lot of editor time in wasted arguments due to editors not knowing previous community consensus. -- ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 19:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: The sources are mostly taken from WP:RSP, WP:NPPSG, Beall's list (not wholesale however), various WikiProject/WP:RSN discussions, and obvious nonsense (like satirical sites). The minor differences amount to classifying in yellow vs red or similar. For example, ResearchGate is in red at WP:RSP, but highlighted in yellow by the script, because the vast majority of the time, these are simply convenience links to published journal articles, which happen to be hosted on ResearchGate, and not to some original scholarship published on ResearchGate by a random person. Yellow is a better reminder to double-check, rather than a stronger warning of confirmed crap. Likewise, Forbes is both Green/Red at WP:RSP, but here we put yellow (depends on topic), since we cannot detect weather or not a piece was written by staff (green), or by an external contributor (red).

The sources themselves can be found on User:Headbomb/unreliable.js. I edit the script based on what my best determination of what the Wikipedian consensus is. Anyone is free to challenge specific sources, or requests to a sources at RSN, and I'll happily update the script accordingly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. If this could be automated based on those lists and the lists followed a more stringent criteria (yellow rather than green/red for forbes for example) we could disseminate the consensus of the community more widely in a more efficient/automated way. Every time a user tried to use a deprecated source he could get a warning for example. Just thinking out loud here but it could be an interesting proposal. -- ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 20:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The WP:RSP lists do follow "stringent criteria". The issue here is that, for example, Forbes.com or ResearchGate or what have you hosts several types of content, and the script cannot discriminate between said types of content. As for being warned, that's what WP:Edit Filterss are for, but for editing warnings, the concerns about specific sources need to be substantially higher than 'you probably want to double check this/are you sure this is reliable?'. Deprecated sources would likely meet the criteria for an edit filter though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. This should just be a warning to editors. Something like: "The community regards this source as questionable (see discussion here). Please make sure the standards for reliable sourcing are being met or you edit might be reverted". It wouldn't block the user from using it. Just warn him of the previous consensus. -- ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 20:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The warning could probably do a simple URL match in the visual editor cite tool. That would be great for both old and new users. How about we take this to WP:VPIL Headbomb? -- ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 20:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to WP:VPIL, but I'm fairly weary of making an opt-in script with several warnings on how to properly use it to be the default for masses that maybe don't understand the nuances of it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No the script as is is definitely not appropriate for the masses. Either your idea of edit filters (at least for deprecated sources - that would not require any new UI) or something lighter integrated into the cite UI of the visual editor when you input the URL. But I have no idea of how features like that are implemented on Wiki. -- ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Headbomb/unreliable.js marks a reference with www.ekushey-tv.com in its URL as a "Generally unreliable source". Presumably this is because of the pattern the code uses to match the user-generated tv.com. Ekushey Television is a reliable source for the sorts of things TV news is usually reliable for, so it would be nice if this could be fixed. Ekushey TV isn't cited very often, fewer than 100 times, so if fixing it isn't feasible, I understand. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: should be fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that google books urls are now highlighted as yellow. This is making it much harder for me to find the script useful since there are just so many gbooks URLs in articles I work on. Is there a way I could customize the script to stop highlighting books.google.com for me? No worries if not... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@SD0001: I've setup custom rules (for myself) at User:Headbomb/unreliable-rules.js, but it doesn't seem to overrule User:Headbomb/unreliable.js. Is there a way for User:Headbomb/unreliable-rules.js to not just supplement, but rather entirely overrule User:Headbomb/unreliable.js? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove return false; from lines 138 and 153. – SD0001 (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I'm exploring a solution (see above), but in the meantime remember that yellow simply is the least problematic. Google Books was added because it's a general repository of books, and will have all sorts of unreliable books, like self-published books (e.g. [11]). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out. Your point about gbooks is undoubtedly valid, but for me I'm well aware of the limitations of google books. The frequency with which articles include links there means the yellow highlighting won't help me identify potentially unreliable sources, it will just cause me to gloss over all yellow highlighted links and miss more useful highlights, such as to forbes Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891:, create User:Eddie891/unreliable-rules.js and paste

unreliableCustomRules = [
	{
		comment: 'Plain google books',
		regex: /\b(books\.google\.com)/i,
		css: { "background-color": "" }
	},
];

Should fix it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Works like a charm, tyvm!! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Questionable-at-best source currently used in hundreds of articles, focussed on Indian sports but also on other topics. The editorial process sounds extremely lax -- they publish hundreds of articles a day, most by non-employees who are expected to submit already-factchecked articles. There've been a couple of short discussions at RSN, but nothing much has been done to start to remove this source or check the assertions it supports. I think it would be helpful if it appeared highlighted. —valereee (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'll add to "depends on contributor/topic" for now. But an RSN discussion would be best to determine how to classify it in general. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! I was just thinking about opening a discussion at RSN. —valereee (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know much about specific journals and figuring out if they are reliable seems to be pretty tricky. I see "Physics Essays" is included in the list but can't figure out why it has been included. Could you clarify Headbomb? I tried a couple of google searches and couldn't find much.

I think you should establish clear criteria for inclusion in the list if you want to have more users adopt this script. At the moment some of the inclusion criteria seem too opaque.

-- ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 16:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: See User talk:Headbomb/unreliable/Archive 1#Physics Essays and WP:JCW/Questionable3#Physics Essays. You can also search the archives of WT:PHYS for several discussions related to this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Wow. Identifying reliable journals is a real mess... -- ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 19:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The following citation "Conversion Therapy is Torture". International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims. Retrieved 31 May 2021. to the website of reputable organization International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims is marked as a predatory journal. I'm guessing it has a suspicious combination of letters in it? (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Can't see why it would have been flagged. It's possible IJICRT got cut off to ICRT by accident. Either way, I've fixed it. Thanks for reporting the error. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb, do you think it would be possible for your script to detect if an arXiv pre-print is in gen-ph? They do this wonderful service of putting the crackpot pre-prints in a separate section, it would be nice to take advantage of their work and mark the links accordingly. The difficulty is that you can't know that from the URL: the "new style" (e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.05395 ) doesn't show the section at all, and the "old style" (e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609007 ) only shows the larger section "Physics", which has a lot of legitimate research. Your script would need to query the page and check whether the subsection is "physics.gen-ph", I don't know if this is technically possible. Tercer (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

With a bit of tweaking, it could probably detect ((cite arxiv))s with |class= set to physics.gen-ph or similar, but I'm not super keen on distinguishing within the archive (even if physics.gen-ph is more likely to be bunk nutcase ramblings than hep-ex). The arxiv isn't a reliable source in general, so whenever you see it you should double check if it's used for routine information, or for novel claims. But let it simmer in the brainjuice for a while, see if I can't come up with something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Skilling, John; Knuth, Kevin H. (2020). "The arithmetic of uncertainty unifies quantum formalism and relativistic spacetime". arXiv:2104.05395 [physics.gen-ph].
• Chalmers, Gordon (2006). "Modification to Special Relativity". arXiv:physics/0609007.

@Tercer: I tried something, see above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You can hunt for them here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, it does work, thanks! The |class= parameter is seldom set, though, so I guess the vast majority of the cases will be hard to find. Tercer (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, for ((cite arxiv)), citation bot does set it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how active citation bot is, but for example in Gleason's theorem it is not set anywhere, and this is typically the case. Tercer (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tercer: that's because those are ((cite journal))s, which are things that have gone through peer-review (well, forgetting predatory/quack journals, but those should be flagged because of their predatoriness/quackness, not because of physics.gen-ph). I've done a rough check and all ~690 or so ((cite arxiv)) with newer links do have their |class= set. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, there are also borderline journals which occasionally publish stuff from physics.gen-ph. If I recall correctly there was recently a case with Int. J. Theor. Phys., which is not flagged as quack. Tercer (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tercer: BTW, there's about 12 citations to gen-ph remaining or so. So may be OK, but since you're interested in doing that cleanup, I figured I'd ping you on the progress. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

In my first pass I removed the cases where it the citation was unambiguously unwarranted, the cases left are those where it should remain or I find it unclear. I'll take a close look at them tomorrow. Tercer (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I finished it now. Removed some, fixed some, in the end I left 4 citations:

• Brian Josephson: only one item in a long list of unreliable references. No point in removing only this one, and I'm not in the mood for fixing the whole article.
• Steven Weinstein (philosopher): it's being cited as one of his works, I don't see a problem.
• Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments: a large part of the article is about the controversy caused by this paper, and it is specifically mentioned as being unreliable. I think it definitely should stay.
• Energy Catalyzer: again, the paper is important for the article, and it is specifically cited as being unreliable. There's also a debunking, also published in gen-ph. Not acceptable in ordinary circumstances, but given the subject matter it's as reliable a source as it gets. Tercer (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a self-publisher/on-demand, should probably be added to the list —valereee (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: It's already listed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Huh...when I checked in my sandbox this morning, it didn't highlight, but now it is. Weird. Sorry! —valereee (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: If you mean User:Valereee/sandbox, it's not highlighted because there is no link to Lulu.com, instead it highlights the link to GoogleBooks and warns you that GoogleBooks hosts self-published material. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

OOOOH. I'm an idiot. Hahahahaha... —valereee (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

A discussion surrounding the reliability of Press TV on the reliable sources noticeboard was recently closed with clear consensus to deprecate. Would it be possible for someone to add the source's four urls that are listed on WP:RSP to the list, in light of this? Currently, the Iranian TLD is not being highlighted at all, though the now-defunct .com TLD is showing only as generally unreliable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Added here. I don't know which other URLs you are talking about however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Headbomb: The station's alternative sites include the [presstv.com now-seized] presstv.com. The group also includes includes presstv.co.uk, and presstv.tv, according to their website. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Added the last two. If you find more, let me know. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

ABS-CBN is considered a generally reliable source in the Philippines, and its reliability has not been contested in the perennial sources list and in the reliable source noticeboard archives, though Christian Broadcasting Network is also lumped into these results, so I assume this must be to do with the similarity of their urls? Akbermamps 10:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Appears to be the case - the regex in question simplifies to \bcbn\.com, and the \b matches the dash in abs-cbn.com. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll take care of the false positive by the end of the day. Going to be a bit busy for the next few hours however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Akbermamps: should be fixed now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Some DOIs of Surgical Neurology International are marked as marginal (e.g. 10.4103%2F2152-7806.63896 10.4103%2F2152-7806.103019) but links to the PMC of articles are not (e.g. PMC3514915 PMC2908352). I do not believe this source should be marked as marginal.

There does not exist an RSP or RSN post about this source. The marginal entry in this add-on says: "Borderline source, which often (but not always) fails higher sourcing requirements. For Bentham journals, only those published by Bentham Open are of concern. For Copernicus journals, those from the EGU are fine." SNI is not a part of Bentham or Copernicus.

It is owned by Wolters Kluwer Medknow [12]. Scimago puts SNI in Q3 for Neurology, but Q2 for Surgery [13]. It is ranked 11th of most cited neurosurgery journals by Google Scholar [14]. It is indexed in Pubmed Central [15] and Scopus [16]. The editor-in-chief is a well-respected neurosurgeon at UCLA, James I. Ausman.

There are, truthfully, not that many general neurosurgical journals. And it is a small field (of roughly 3700 practicing neurosurgeons in the US [17], compared to roughly 110,000 internal medicine physicians [18]). So what counts as a "good" journal in this field is skewed in comparison to the rest of medicine. All index factors in neurosurgery are pretty small, comparatively.

For all these reasons, I don't think this source should be listed as "marginal."

Full disclosure, I have also published in this journal: [19] [20].

Anyway, let me know what you think.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Medknow Publications (who did published that article, you can tell by the DOI prefix 10.4103) is borderline , yes. See the note at WP:CITEWATCH#Medknow Publications. Medknow was listed on Beall's list, it then got delisted, but several of its journals got individually re-listed. Doesn't mean SNI itself is problematic (especially after it broke ties with Medknow; it is now published by Scientific Scholar, which you can tell by the DOI prefix 10.25259), but Medknow in general is... to be taken with a grain of salt. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb, ohhhh, I see. So the coloration is based upon DOI prefix? That makes a ton of sense, thank you. So the publications that were put out while under Medknow are tainted, but the new DOIs will not be. Okay that makes sense, and is probably fair. I don't really have any intention of ever citing anything from there anyway, as there are better topic reviews in better journals. Thank you for the explanation.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It's based upon DOI prefixes and URL domains, yes. It could technically match any pattern inside of a URL, but those are usually the ones that make the most sense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why this website appears in red https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Hall#cite_note-:0-1 --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_307#Toronto_Guardian. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

According to the Status Labs article, the websites "MedicalDailyTimes.com", "ChronicleWeek.com", and "ChemFindIt.com" are fake news websites. I just checked whether they were being used on WP and noticed that the links weren't being highlighted.
Also, I assume the investigation found more than just those three websites, so it's possible that more of them have been revealed elsewhere. Sunrise (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I added those three, though they aren't used anywhere on Wikipedia at the moment [21]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised to see citations to english-heritage.org.uk highlighted in red (see English Heritage). Looking at User:Headbomb/unreliable.js it seems like this is a false positive caused by the entry for Heritage.org. Spicy (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like it yeah. I'll try to come up with a fix later today. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spicy: should be fixed now. Thanks for the report! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Similarly for Heritage New Zealand which uses heritage.org.nz. There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia which use this as a reference for notable buildings, mostly via ((NZHPT)). Would the problematic uses of the American website always have a slash after the .org you could test for?-gadfium 22:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gadfium: should be fixed now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Great. thanks for the speedy fix.-gadfium 23:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether a different page title might be appropriate. "Questionable"? "Disreputable"? A questionable or disreputable source can be reliable for certain statements, so the script is not really able to determine reliability at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It's designed to find unreliable and potentially unreliable sources. Nothing wrong with the current name. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

All sources are potentially unreliable. Any source that does not directly support the content is unreliable for that content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is obviously correct. Furthermore, why would anyone want a tool that ruins an article by cosmetically casting aspersions upon a thing, rather than flag it with ((better source needed)) or delete it or otherwise do their Wikipedian duty? — Smuckola(talk) 20:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not renaming the page or the script. See also WP:BIKESHED. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You're belligerently shushing the very pertinent and correct outside world that you just aimlessly spammed. Your spam included self-aggrandization so I guess that's not surprising. Your irrelevant mention of WP:BIKESHED is the bikeshed here. — Smuckola(talk) 20:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think he's being belligerent. Headbomb and I have been talking about this script and ways of solving the various problems for a long time now. We know each other's views pretty well. I respect his, and I feel like he respects me. It would be incorrect to cast me in the role of the opposition. And not only do I not feel like I am part of the "outside world" in this context, or that the recent message was either aimless or self-aggrandizing, but I also have no intention of demanding that he take my suggestion. mw:Naming things is hard, and sometimes people read more into the name than they should (and, in this specific instance, I feel confident in saying, more than Headbomb intends anyone to). But IMO the benefit of a new name would be limited – not zero, or I wouldn't have suggested it, but limited. If he doesn't feel like it's worth it, then that's okay with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, unless another tool arises that has a better claim to the name, or where a lack of disambiguation could cause confusion, it's fairly moot. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: ok but you're all perfectly cherry (nit)picking out the side point, and totally ignoring the vital majority of what I said. — Smuckola(talk) 00:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm using it precisely to scan references and either delete duplicative unreliable sources or tag them as better source needed. It is an excellent tool that saves people scanning 100s of sources, and flags the most dubious. But this process shouldn't be automated, because, as Headbomb notes, some judgement is required. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Very useful. Good job, and thanks for the mail out. Also hadn't known about the tool ranking - I'll be checking out some of the other entries too now that I know. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been using it for awhile and I really appreciate the value it adds. So in case I've neglected to thank you in the past, thank you now! Schazjmd (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, would it be possible to have this website added to the list of depreciated sources, please? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Deprecation happens at WP:RSN. I can highlight the link as generally/marginally unreliable, but I'd first need to know the reasons why this should be considered unreliable (if obvious), or point to an WP:RSN discussion about that source if not obvious/contentious since that's where consensus about these things need to be established. Or perhaps a discussion at WT:MILHIST. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, thanks for this. There already a discussion about axishistory.com, lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de, and feldgrau.com at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 260 and I don't think anyone would serious doubt that these are unreliable solely as amatuer WP:SPS if not for anything else. They are, unfortunately, still widely cited in low-quality MILHIST articles. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add all three to generally unreliable. If they get blacklisted, let me know I and I'll move to blacklisted instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Will you add unreliable sources from WP:PW/RS to the list? That would be very helpful for the members of WP:PROWRESTLING. Because many pro wrestling-related articles use those unreliable sources but the script can't detect them yet; e.g. take a look at Sareee. Citation #43 is unreliable per PW/RS but the script does not highlight it. Mann Mann (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mann Mann: I could... but it's a bit tricky without a RSN discussions (you can check WT:VG for a similar discussion concerning videogame sources). The key points are

1. I'm not familiar with the wrestling world much, so I can't judge these myself, unless super obvious / an explanation of why something is unreliable. This is a minor point however.
2. I don't know how much the wrestling project's opinion is reflective of the wider community. Typically, an WP:RSN discussion is preferred.
3. Some of these might be unreliable for the wrestling project, but reliable for other topics.

I do note that there seems to be documentation for why each is considered unreliable, which I haven't reviewed yet. It's late here, but I'll check it tomorrow to integrate as many things as I can, and see what I can't integrate without wider community feedback. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. You can discuss it on WT:PW or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources. I saw this message by MediaWiki message delivery about the script on WT:PW and it looked interesting, so I decided to install it. Tested it on some articles and it found some unreliable sources like Sportskeeda (considered as unreliable per PW/RS too). I like this script and it will be useful for me. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mann Mann (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mann Mann: I added a few, but for many of them the documented evidence seems weak. Like, All Wrestling is listed as "Article writers use screen names only", but when I check https://allwrestling.com/, I see writer names. Likewise many sites are listed as reporting rumors, but they did report it as a rumor, which doesn't seem like a sin to me. I'd be happy to add more, but I'd want to see stronger cases for unreliability first, or RSN discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you make a more human-readable version of the list of websites included in the unreliable.js script? At the moment, it is a dense blob of regex in the code. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

No idea if it's even possible. Feel free to suggest improvements. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Are there any lists maintained on Wikipedia for religious POV sources that could be incorporated into the tool, or does it all flow through WP:RS? There are a lot of low-grade religious sources that have clear neutrality and reliability issues, but are currently not even flagged as yellow. Yet it would be laborious indeed to pass them all, one by one, through a WP:RS RFC process. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a theologian and context matters a lot for religious sources. I wouldn't be able to begin to tell you what's a reliable Hindi scholar and a fringe Hindi scholar, for example. So yes, a project-wide consensus is needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

What about making it opt-in using a class? Details and example at WT:MED. Mathglot (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It's already opt-in. Not sure what a class would add. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ref no. 30 in Museum of Antiquities in Vilnius is being highlighted for "misleading journal metric". What does that mean? I see the website that's hosting the article is somehow problematic, but I don't see explanation in the documentation as to what the problem actually is. Thanks, Renata•3 22:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Renata3: See User_talk:Headbomb/unreliable/Archive_1#"Misleading journal metric"—oaji.net for a similar issue. I'll do more digging about this specific journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

So is the problem that OAJI is an indiscriminate collection of journals? What makes it different from, say, academia.edu or reasearchgate.net that are highlighted in yellow? Just trying to understand. Renata•3 00:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

OAJI is a hoax organization, so if you work with them, chances are you're not a reputable organization and are looking to advertise fake impact factors. In this case, the only online presence of this journal or its publisher (except for their own website), the so-called Scientific Methodical Centre "Scientia Educologica" is facebook. This is not a reputable journal/conference/publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Special:Permalink/1088052042 highlights the comments in red. This is undesirable and sometimes annoying. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 23:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: See User:Headbomb/unreliable#Limitations. Change * to : at the start of comments to bypass this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Was going through Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Media/Music and found a reference to setlist.fm, and was surprised it wasn't highlighted. The site is very clear cut user generated content, and is listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, with a (very short) 2018 discussion here. It's usage is unfortunately extensive. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Zeldauniverse.net is a blog consisting of various self-published posts. You might want to add this to the list as I have seen it used as a source. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I will note that the site and its YouTube channel do host some interviews with people who worked on various games in The Legend of Zelda series and the TV show, such as this one with the voice actor of Mipha from The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity, and this one with the voice actress of Zelda from The Legend of Zelda (TV series). I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy on this sort of stuff is though. ~Red Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Arctic Circle System: I'd say discuss it with WP:VG first and I'll abide by what they decide (highlight in red as unreliable, or yellow as depends on topic/contributor). See also [22]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Arctic Circle System: WT:VGRS is probably where you want the discussion to happen, btw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Headbomb

Shouldn’t it show as red when used in a reference? Doug Weller talk 17:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Or did I ask this before? Doug Weller talk 17:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more explicit in what exactly it is you're asking here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s used in Aisha, at the moment reference 10. I’m under the impression that the default for self-published books is unreliable. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: There's no link for the script to operate on. See User:Headbomb/unreliable#False negatives. Or the "bad at dealing with offline sources" bit in the big notice at the top of the script's documentation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Ouch. Sorry, I shall set reading that page as homework so I don’t bother you again. Seriously, I’ll try to read it tomorrow, maybe while I’m sitting for two hours having chemo, if the hospital wireless works. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself over it. Life's too short for memorizing pages of technical documentation. Good luck with the chemo, and don't be afraid to ask if you have more questions! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ll read it though because I’m interested. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting. So would creating a filter for authorhouse (separately) be a good idea? And maybe CreateSpace (although I guess these might exist). It would have to be for publishers that don't have ambiguous names. Doug Weller talk 12:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how one would go about doing that. You can always search [23] and [24] to find those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That’s a better way. I’ve a lot to learn about searching Wikipedia it seems. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I was told here that I should use this tool but I have no clue on how to go about it? Is this something that goes under Twinkle tools or something? Please explain to a dummy user or point me to the right page for explanation. Thanks a lot. EMsmile (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@EMsmile: You just install it and that's pretty much that. See how to install. And if you want to test to see if it works, you can check User:Headbomb/unreliable/testcases. If the links are highlighted in various colours, the script works and was installed correctly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it to work (I somehow overlooked the "install" button earlier"). I've tested it out on a page that I am working on: sustainability. However, it highlights many books in light yellow as "preprint or general repository which may or may not...". How can I avoid that books like this one are marked in yellow? Or is that unavoidable or the tool doesn't work well for books? Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit: ignore my question, I think I've found my answers about books here. EMsmile (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@EMsmile: The answer you want is actually at WP:UPSD#OCLC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Does it cause whole paragraphs to turn pink? As in HMS Terror (1813)#Legacy the paragraph starting "In July 2013, an anonymous miniaturist began reconstructing". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

See User:Headbomb/unreliable#Comments. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This is one of the best user scripts, but I think it would be a lot better if there was an option to configure showing "generally reliable" sources differently from sources that are of unknown quality. This addition would make reviewing AfC submissions a lot easier. There could be a separate list of reliable sources as determined on WP:RSP. Thank you for the script! 0xDeadbeef 07:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Unknown quality" is basically everything not highlighted. You can combine this script with WP:CITEUNSEEN or use User:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter instead, the latter of which I do not recommend specifically because it highlights sources in green when it shouldn't. You have no way of knowing if something published in the New York Times is reliable or not, even if the New York Times itself is generally reliable. Likewise for something published in Science or any other generally reliable publications. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

One more predatory journal to your script: Sys Rev Pharm, they use enterosorbents in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: [25], "The main medicinal drugs of choice, with a proven pathogenetic mechanism of allergens removal from the body, are enterosorbents". D6194c-1cc (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@D6194c-1cc: do you have a source to back up the predatory-ness of this source? Because the above is completely meaningless to me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. But the statement I've quoted is backed up by two another publications, one of which relies on activated carbon usage in allergic diseases in Russia and the another is about Enterosgel and has only one mention of allergic diseases in the context of interactions with other drugs. I doubt that a good peer review process would accept papers with such claims. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@D6194c-1cc: Maybe so, but bad papers (or good papers with different conclusions) get through to good journals all the time. If there's a systematic issue with that journal, you can bring it up to WP:RSN or WT:MED and get consensus that this is a terrible journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, one another paper about antihistamines ([26]) with the same authors cites this one: "Recently, data have appeared on the complex use of antihistamine drugs and enterosorbents in the treatment of allergic diseases [14]. This approach accelerates the elimination of the allergen from the patient's body, suppresses the body's sensitivity to its sensitizing effect, and, therefore, increases the effectiveness of antiallergic drug therapy". If I'll find more such articles I'll open the discussion WP:RSN or WT:MED. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Remember that you have to show that these papers are somehow discredited. Not just that they say X causes Y. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

They say that enterosorbents increase effectiveness of antihistamines but their arguments are not backed up by reliable sources. And the only reliable source I've found about enterosorbents and allergy is [27], but the authors are from Russia too, so they could simply describe Russian traditions in treatments which often far from evidence-based medicine. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Copied and old discussion (in beige) so I don't forget this and that others are kept abreast. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Add royalcentral.co.uk as a deprecated source per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_Sydney_Zatz_on_Royal_Central. I have also requested that this site be blacklisted, so by the time you read this it will probably be on the blacklist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Added, ping me if/when it gets blacklisted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Links to https://examiner.com.au are showing up as blacklisted, I assume because of the entry for Examiner.com. This seems to be a normal Australian news site that has nothing to do with the blacklisted Examiner. Spicy (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Well that one might be hard to bypass, given it literally contains the full domain. But I'll try to see if there's a way. I might need a few days before I get to this however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, hope you are well. Is it possible to disallow the script to run on article talk pages? It looks like the script is highlighting some of the links listed at MediaWiki:Histlegend as unreliable. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

you can find it at your meta talk page. They're put in 3 categories: one for RSP stuff, one for other discussions, and one for miscellaneous stuff (lists, self published stuff, general garbage news).

@Headbomb 137a (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• bump

137a (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's the list posted here: Feel free to strike ones that you have added and maybe add a comment.

137a (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Headbomb still a few topics to address here. 137a (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What's the current thinking about which updates like this should hit RSP or CITEWATCH and which should just update this script? If available, I'd love to see something like the videogames list in terms of edit-summaries, last-decision, and the sequence of historical reevaluations. – SJ + 19:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean... If it has been discussed enough times on RSN, it should probably make RSP and WP:NPPSG. But I haven't really thought about that. WP:RSPCRITERIA says that is eligible for RSP listing. It it's not eligible, it might at last make NPPSG. (please ping on reply) 137a (talk • edits) 14:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb hasn't edited this talk page since September 23 see page hist and the script since Dec 5 hist. A few edits on User:Headbomb/unreliable in January. 137a (talk • edits) 14:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Headbomb I am a dedicated user of the unreliable script. I do a lot of work improving Wikipedia's music pages, Year in Music pages, etc. I have removed a huge number of sections riddled with unreliable user-sourced information that have no citations, and replaced them with comprehensive data with many references and text explaining everything to the reader.

In the course of my work, I need to find many recording dates for hit records of the 20th Century, and of course they are useless to me without reliable citations. When I come up empty on the internet and my books, I go hunting for album liner notes on anthology-type releases, where often the record companies list the musicians and recording details. I will cut to the chase. This is a line from an infobox:

| recorded =August 16, 1967 (1967-08-16)^[1]

from Woman, Woman infobox

If you click on the url, it goes straight to an image of the cd booklet that is the source of my information. The booklet was printed by Sony, and the information comes from their Archives in New York. There is no better source in the world than this for Columbia, RCA Victor, and the other companies they have acquired.

There is only one problem, the scanned page is on discogs website. All the other websites I checked had the cover only. The reason discogs and 45world are blacklisted is their information is unreliable user-sourced. But I use them all the time to double check the information I get from my reliable sources because their pictures are the original records. Of course you need to know exactly what you are looking for, but it comes in handy to confirm exact spellings of artists and titles. Here it came in very handy, I got 7 extremely reliable recording dates from that one page.

However, we have a rule about using that website. My argument is that my information is sourced from Sony, not discogs. I saw all the pages scanned from the booklet. and it was obviously authentic. Like I said, I do this all the time, and I am probably as crazy as you are about reliable information. Even with the rules, I see stuff I am very uncomfortable with i.e.List of best-selling singles and its related pages List of best-selling singles in the United States, loaded with unreliable hyped up numbers we should have nothing to do with. Oh well, I am not in charge, and we can't blacklist everything, and I have plenty of work to do.

I could change my citation to not use the url if I have to, but I think it is better the way it is. Let me know what you think, and I'll make any changes necessary-Dave Tillywilly17 (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tillywilly17: I don't really see where there's a problem here. The issue with discogs is the user generated content. A scan of official content is as good a source as any. There's no need to change your URLs to anything. If someone is removing them for whatever reason and you're constantly running into headaches, you can always add a comment like <ref>[https://www.discogs.com/whatever Scan of Official Cover ] via Discogs<!--This is not user-generated content--></ref> or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

thank you, that was a great answer, I will add that Tillywilly17 (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Dexerto is generally unreliable per WP:VGRS
• Distractify is borderline per WP:NPPSG
• seattletimes.com/sponsored is self-explanatory
• redice.tv is generally unreliable
• Entrepreneur (magazine) is listed as no consensus on WP:RSP, but the site has contributor pieces which are unreliable
• dailytelegraph.com.au (the Sydney one) is generally unreliable per this RSN discussion

More on this section above

Also, has this been addressed yet? 137a (talk • edits) 19:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Iranian government sources seem to be being leant an undue degree of leniency at present, with the exception of Press TV. A list of the various Iranian government news channels can be found here. The most spurious among them are the Fars News Agency, which is run by the IRGC and once posted a story about a time machine and also claimed the US was influenced by extraterrestrials; the Tasnim News Agency, which also has links to the IRGC and called Covid-19 an American and Jewish plot at world domination hatched by Henry Kissinger; and Mashregh News, which has also been described as close to Iranian intelligence, appears to repeat government writ verbatim and has been implicated in several content controversies as well - though it's the least concern. Past discussions of the first two sources can be found here and here Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Hey, do you monitor this talk, or have any thoughts on the above, or should I just take it back to the noticeboard? Would be good to have your input one way or another, even if it's just to tell me to take this elswhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I do, however, I'm fairly busy until early March. An clear RSN discussion makes it easier for me to not have to use my brain. You have some, but I haven't taken a look at them yet because of said business. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This link https://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf is highlighted as generally unreliable. What is that based off? I can't seem to find it in any of the "lists". Thanks ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 12:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC) This link https://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf is highlighted as generally unreliable. What is that based off? I can't seem to find it in any of the "lists". Thanks ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 12:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Environmental Working Group is an advocacy group. You can search for "EWG.org" or "Environmental Working Group" at RSN and elsewhere (e.g. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 62#EWG) for a few hits. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Are Advocacy groups usually considered unreliable? I don't see any consensus that they are "generally unreliable" on RSN. Just a few mentions (many are actually confirming they are usually reliable). ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 13:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not all of them, but this one is an alarmist organic food advocacy group. See updated links above. Or this Forbe's article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece (and from a yellow link ;-)). The link to the fringe theories noticeboard is between two users with no sources. This seems a rather poor evaluation. The article on EWG is also poorly sourced in it's statement that it "has been criticized". I think we need more solid sourcing to reach this conclusion. It appears the script is marking EWG without any actual inclusion in one of "the lists" ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 13:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll take Quackwatch's or the American Academy of Dermatology's opinions over your personal preferences on this one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Me too. Would you have a link to those sources?

Also: this means that some sources are marked as unreliable based on your own assessment but not necessarily based on community consensus? Doesn't seem specified here: User:Headbomb/unreliable#What it does?

Don't want to sound too critical here (this is YOUR script after all!). I would just like to know exactly what I'm using. Thanks. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 14:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

They're both in the EWG article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, that AAD source from 2010 appears to be substantially out of date. It mentions "safe new chemicals" in sunscreens that the EWG has criticised "unfairly" such as oxybenzone. They mention that the only chemicals they support are "old technology" like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. However in 2021 the FDA supported completely what EWG was saying. The only chemicals they currently consider GRASE for use in sunscreens are Zinc and Titanium. Oxybenzone has been banned for various reasons around the world and linked to various negative effects such as killing off corals. Like they say: hindsight is 20/20 right?

Quackwatch still has them on the list of questionable organisations as of Feb, 2022.

What about the other point I raised about the script? Thanks ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 17:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

What other points? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Are some sources marked as unreliable based on your own assessment but not necessarily based on community consensus? I don't see that specified here: User:Headbomb/unreliable#What it does?. Thanks. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 18:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it's technically possible, but I don't recall making unilateral judgments except in very clear cases of nonsense (like flagging certain satire sites like The Beaverton). There are some differences with WP:RSP's classification, like arXiv being flagged in yellow, rather than red, because preprints are often used in lieu of their published version (or alongside them). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I ended up here through a rabbit hole of sorts, but I will echo Headbomb's comment on the EWG. Whether it's on-wiki or just us university agricultural scientists speaking up IRL, it is well known as unreliable for misleading or outright fearmongering purposeful misrepresentations dealing with chemicals. For those of us that to deal with legitimate chemical safety issues and concerns, EWG has us starting in the negatives for public education rather than just square 1. Just calling them a "boy who cried wolf" type organization is already being pretty generous. There hasn't really been a need to designate it over at WP:RSP though since the only people I've seen really pushing that it's reliable are usually those who end up topic banned for pushing fringe advocacy. If more people get caught off-guard by the group though on-wiki, it may be worth adding it to the list someday though. KoA (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have some additional up to date sources to report? I'm editing Environmental Working Group as we speak and most of the critical voices are 10+ years old. Since then it seems to me that they have been largely proven right by history - there WAS a wolf! E.g. the sunscreen report they have been publishing since the early 2000s: some of the substances they have criticised turned out to be harmful and are basically only used in the US nowadays and even there they are banned in several places. FDA is reviewing their classification. In addition to this, reliable sources routinely cite them, and large industry players have partnered with them. I don't think that makes them qualify as a generally unreliable source. Surely not in such an egregious manner that it shouldn't even be discussed. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 19:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Congralutations, you've found a brocken clock. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'm starting to see WP:COATRACK problems related to that one when EWG's actions really aren't discussed much in that regard later on. That Gtoffoletto is describing them is largely proven right by history is a huge red flag when it comes to WP:FRINGE advocacy groups like this. There just hasn't been that much advocacy on-wiki related to this group that we've needed to spell it out in terms of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP/WP:NOTBURO, and that's mostly because those of us who deal with MEDRS/FRINGE issues handle issues from these groups when they come up without much issue. KoA (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK is an essay. I think we need to make decisions based on Reliable Sources. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 13:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, documents published by NGOs in the field of human rights, consumer protection, environmentalism, health or development need to be cited with care. If e.g. it's about their position on a certain point, this needs to be clearly stated. For instance, the hazard score of a chemical in EWG's Skin Deep database may be provided, if it is made clear what kind of organization EWG is. The same holds true for other organizations with a (potentially) biased view such as companies or trade organizations. CropLife International and American Chemistry Council, for example, are cited in 19 articles and 53 articles, respectively. On the other hand, all references to the Pesticide Action Network and its Pesticide Info database are regularly being removed, even though it is an accredited stakeholder organization regularly contributing to UNEP work (example). Furthermore, a self-statement on accuracy of data is provided, the Arizona Department of Agriculture states This environmental group maintains a pesticide database that presents current toxicity and regulatory information. Notable features: sources for information (including EPA) completely transparent; site is very easy to navigate. and an assessment of toxicological databases concludes that the PAN Pesticides Database met the inclusion criteria and ranked in the midfield of the evaluated 21 databases.
Overall, actions of certain users seem to have led to a bias in the selection of references used in this field. --Leyo 23:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with this view. This is a very slippery slope towards an extremely dangerous bias. Picking and choosing which advocacy groups are allowed/reliable and which aren't based on the opinions of a few bloggers really bothers me. I find it worrisome that many of those bloggers only tend to criticise advocacy groups that don't align with industry. We should definitely give an equally cautious treatment to content coming from any advocacy group and especially those tied to a specific industry (for obvious reasons). We should always strive for independent and reliable scientific accuracy, and that doesn't mean giving industry a free pass without allowing any questioning. If Wikipedia doesn't already have it, I think a general policy on how to treat content by advocacy groups would be an important priority. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 02:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

How do I run uneliable.js on my wiki page? I can install it, but there are no instructions on how to run it in order to check a source. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@ScooterMcGruff: if it's on the English wikipedia, just follow the instructions from User:Headbomb/unreliable#How_to_install. If it's on a different wikipedia (e.g. Spanish Wikipedia), or a private wiki, you'll need to create your own .js page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

And for Physics Essays in particular, see User_talk:Headbomb/unreliable/Archive_1#Physics_Essays. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That does not explain how to run the script. It only explains how to install the script. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It you install the script it automatically runs. Once installed, you can go to User:Headbomb/unreliable/testcases to see if it works. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Where do I type in the name "Physics Essays" to get output from the script? ScooterMcGruff (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't, that's now how the script works. Read the documentation to see what it does. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I read the documentation. It does not tell you how to search a source. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

See Help:Search. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no search box for the script that I see. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm I don't know what you expect this script to do. It's explained black on white here. You can check User:Headbomb/unreliable/testcases to see if you have it correctly installed. If you see links highlighted in yellow and red, it's correctly installed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Per past RSN discussions, this source should be highlighted as generally unreliable. Thanks. 137a (talk • edits) 18:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, is there a discussion you can point me towards for the listing of the Motley fool as generally unreliable? :3 F4U (they/it) 23:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It was discussed at RSN here and here (just search for Motley Fool). It's also listed here and in here. It doesn't seem to be the worst source in the world, but it seems very speculative and opinion driven. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a thank you for creating such a useful tool. Amigao (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

For example I write quite a lot about Turkey and sometimes cite Turkish sources here on English Wikipedia. Any chance of your very useful script also scanning the other language lists such as https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:G%C3%BCvenilir_kaynaklar/M%C3%BCtemadi_kaynaklar

I am incited to request this after Yeni Şafak was described as "obviously reliable" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nail_Olpak Chidgk1 (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You can port the script to other Wikipedia, but you'll be responsible for its maintenance over there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

genealogy.euweb.cz is a self published genealogy website that's been discussed a very time as being junk, but the script doesn't pick it up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Added Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Headbomb. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:ALMAYADEEN was recently deprecated. Amigao (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It was suggested that I submit Simple Flying here as an unreliable source. There's been a couple of discussions that seem to repeatedly confirm the view of them being unreliable. Most recently: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#SimpleFlying.com. Could you add it? Avgeekamfot (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

When I suggested that you propose it here, I said that you would need to provide evidence that it is consistently unreliable in many respects. You still need to do that. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

There's enough consensus to mark it unreliable. Deprecating needs more. Added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Avgeekamfot (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Recommend adding all WP:DEPSOURCES to the script. And thanks again for creating such an outstanding resource. Amigao (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure these are already all covered. Do you notice any that are missing? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not flagging all instances of WP:SPUTNIK listed at both WP:RSPSOURCES and WP:DEPSOURCES. For example, if you check out International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, you should see a Sputnik cite that the script does not flag. Amigao (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

In addition, WP:SPUTNIK has most but not all of the website instances. These are missing:

• sputnikmediabank.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnikglobe.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnikportal.rs: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputniknews.africa: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Amigao (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Added those four. If you notice others missing, let me know. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It doesn't look like all these sister sites under WP:SPUTNIK and WP:RT.COM are being flagged. Here are the others:

• sputniknews.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik.by: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• armeniasputnik.am: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik.kz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputniknews.cn: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik.md: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik-georgia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik-georgia.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik-abkhazia.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik-ossetia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik-ossetia.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputniknewslv.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputniknews.lt: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputniknews.gr: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputniknews-uz.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik-tj.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik.az: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik.kg: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• radiosputnik.ria.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• voiceofrussia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• russiatoday.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• russiatoday.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• ruptly.tv: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• redfish.media: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• rt.rs: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amigao (talk • contribs)

Added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. A couple more Sputnik sister sites that have been popping up more recently:

sputniknews.uz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

sputniknews.lat: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com Amigao (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Added Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yet another WP:SPUTNIK site that popped up:

• sputniknews.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Amigao (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Added Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yet another WP:RT.COM sister site:

• actualidad-rt.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Amigao (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Obviously no wiki domain can be a reliable source, could you add w.wiki to unreliable urls. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of such a link? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

https://w.wiki/7vGc

As was being used as a reference in Phoenix, KwaZulu-Natal, before I removed it in this edit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Added. It won't show on this talk page, but it will show in mainspace/on that old revision. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Headbomb

Flagged by your script. I am having trouble finding justification in RSP or RSN archives? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 07:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sister publication of Sixth Tone. RSP splits it into two categories, so this should probably be yellow. I'll investigate more later today. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Any thoughts? In other news, a bunch of red-tagged sources from here should probably be yellow, given how much that discussion was disrupted by socks. (And some non-colored sources could be yellowed too - I'd suggest making everythign from 'naTemat' below yellow, except gazeta.pl). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Ping. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Ping ping? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Moved to yellow. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Headbomb Thank you for this. How about the adjustment to the Polish sources I pointed out above? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific and point to RSN discussions because from a relatively long glance at things, I fail to see where removing the socks chance the outcome of these discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Baike.com probably ought to be flagged by your script the same way other WP:UGC sources are. Amigao (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, flagged as generally unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb. I love the script. I have a request. Rather than inserting a style into each modified anchor, could you please instead add a class to the <a> and perhaps also the parent element if it's a related like <cite> elements? You can then inject a short stylesheet into the document like:

a.source-blacklisted { "background-color": "#dddddd", "text-decoration":"underline", "text-decoration-style": "wavy", "text-decoration-color": "#cc0000"; }
a.source-unreliable { "background-color": "#ffdddd"; }

And so on. While overriding with a title selector is possible, using classes would make it easier (and cleaner) for dark mode users to override the styling with CSS. The current colors are not really usable in dark mode. Adding a class to the parent element would also allow people to highlight the parent element with CSS. You could probably also group the styles a bit more cleanly than the current implementation (it looks like multiple groups intentionally share the same styling). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Headbomb, as a regular AfD participant I find it very disturbing to always have to check WP:RSMUSIC before assessing a discussion to verify the reliability of a source, luckily I came across this script which is very helpful in most topics but no source from WP:RSMUSIC is identified, and BBC and Times of India are reliable per WP:RS/Noticeboard but the script says otherwise. Can you please update the script and keep it in sync as stated here. Thank you in advance. dxneo (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The script doesn't do anything to BBC urls, and Times of India is marked as 'reliability depends on contributor or topic', per WP:TOI.

If you have specific sources in WP:RSMUSIC that should be flagged, let me know. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

These two should be flagged as WP:UGC sources. Thanks. - Amigao (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yet another sister site for WP:BAIDUBAIKE:

• baike.baidu.hk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Amigao (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, it looks like this one might not be getting flagged the way other WP:BAIDUBAIKE sites are by your script. Thanks for the superb work as always! - Amigao (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Added Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)