Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Citations 2010-06-07

Note: This was a draft that was not part of the June 7, 2010 Signpost issue.

Museum placards, blue plaques, inscriptions on grave markers, and other forms of posted media have a place in the historical record, yet until recently there has been little or no discussion on whether they are allowable as sources in Wikipedia. In the past couple of weeks, developments have been brewing that have led to the creation of a new citation template:. The template was renamed from, where the previous name was seen as redundant with. However, during the TfD, it was determined that was also being used in at least a few articles to cite another form of visual media: signs. After being moved to, it was modified to better fit the new purpose by Plastikspork. The new template (still in development) currently renders as:

Quite apart from the deliberations on renaming and modifying the template, there were discussions about the reliability of signs as sources – first at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and subsequently at Featured Article Candidates.

At the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, discussion was started by an editor who cited an information sign outside a well-known city landmark in the article on that landmark. The consensus was that signs can be cited in Wikipedia. Crum375 said:

Noraft (this writer) thought it important that while the medium was acceptable, the "publisher" still had to be scrutinized, with entities posting signs about themselves falling under the self-published source policy. While consensus was favorable to allowing signs, not every editor thought so. "I would say no", said Dlabtot. "Signs are not published according to the normal, accepted meaning of the word published. It is also not always clear who erected a sign or what 'editorial process' the verbiage on the sign went through, even when erected by a responsible entity" (17:36, 26 May 2010 UTC). Although this discussion concluded May 28, another one had started at the FAC talk page three days previously.

Are signs reliable enough to cite in featured articles?
The discussion at the Featured Article Candidate talk page focused on whether or not signs are of high enough quality to be cited in featured articles. Redtigerxyz said:

Consensus at the FAC talk page was that signs by reliable publishers are acceptable for featured articles.