Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources

Proceeding to RfC
I asked some people whose expertise I trust on these things, and they didn't feel this was likely to lead to a productive outcome. One specifically mentioned that the open-ended structure is unlikely to get us closer to a consensus on the questions, and suggested it may be better to draft a page and seek approval for it that way. It does make me a bit less optimistic, and so I'm not going to try facilitate the RfC myself, but I suppose it's entirely possible the discussion ends up more productive than expected. If it's to proceed, and it currently looks like it's proceeding, I'd suggest tagging the top with and adding it to T:CENT and mentioning it at WP:VPP, WT:RS and WT:V to ensure representativeness and a range of opinions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No idea really. It was very much a draft (for which, thanks) and now it has firmed up a little but it is still more in the way of a pre RFC. Maybe it will turn into a full fledged thing or at least take us to a point where we could essay a guideline in a more complete RFC. It's getting some attention just now because of the ongoing discussions so that's a good thing.Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, it seems sure to clear up what the actual history of deprecation is, since it seems we collectively hallucinated Daily Mail kicking it off. signed,Rosguill talk 23:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, how I intended this discussion to go:
 * Discussion on the main unresolved issues. Hopefully it helps get a sense of the room and build a consensus (in the true definition of the word, rather than the WikiDefinition) on answers to these questions. This is a "request for comment".
 * Some folks take these results and ideas and write a guideline page for deprecated sources.
 * That guideline page is put for approval in an RfC, which would be a simple Yes/No question (whether to promote the newly developed page into a guideline).
 * So we're not exactly following the WP:PGLIFE steps, in the sense that this is a 'before' to those steps. This isn't quite a proposal yet, a future hypothetical draft guideline page would be (its content guided by the result of this RfC). This might not necessarily be the right structure, I mean you could go right into drafting and just ask the community if the draft reflects consensus, but given we have some unresolved questions (to which I don't think we have a single answer that everyone is happy with) I felt a pre-proposal step (this RfC) would be helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, when you went off the idea for a while, I went on it, so to speak and by a process of muddle, ended up essentially following "If a proposal is still in the early formative stages...." from Template:Draft proposal. I don't think it matters that much right now, it matters more that we don't go on from here half baked rather than oven ready. Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

CENT?
Should this be added to the template for WP:CENT? jp×g 05:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * We originally put it in, then took it back out again while we waited a bit more to see what happened. Not clear if there would be much improvement consensus wise by doing so but if you think so, sure. Selfstudier (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn’t a consensus discussion per ss, it’s somewhere between that and brainstorming. The structure is also fuzzy so with too much participation this kinda breaks down. I think it needs a bit more participation but not too much more, so maybe advertising on relevant policy talks is better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There isn't a clear proposal being put, it's discussion with a supposed aim to clear proposals at some point - David Gerard (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)