Category talk:Wikipedia sources

Maintenance categories
Dear God!

I had noticed already the proliferation of Categories such as "Articles in need of an edit since June 2006" and "Articles not citing references" etc and already wonderning why the Categories were being used for maintenance, as well as semantic, purposes.

But when I saw the following I knew there were serious problems going on: "Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica".

This is not a category! This is a source. OK so it is managed in the category called 'Wikipedia sources' page but honestly is this a crazy idea or what? A self organising citation list? I don't think this is going to work. This page already looks arbitrary and stupid. In the future it will be BIG, arbitrary and stupid.

I always hoped that we could extract the whole Categories strucutre, including See also references, and unleash a self-organised subject thesaurus that would put LCSH to bed for good. But its seems to be polluted by these bizarre maintenance level elements. I hope the subject categories can still be distinguished from the rest.

Les Kneebone Thesaurus Analyst — Preceding unsigned comment added by BackwardsBoy (talk • contribs) 00:56, 6 March 2007‎

Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from X
For a discussion of one such category which led to deletion, see Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 5. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable Wikipedia Source?
I’m not even sure if this is the correct place to ask this question, but is Slate considered an acceptable news source? It seems to be quite a dubious source to me. I find nothing there but articles based upon supposition, rumors and innuendo, but I am not as familiar with it as others as others might be. MarydaleEd (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)