Wikipedia talk:Lua/Archive 13

I'm moving this from a declined Phab ticket (T395879) , given that phabricator focuses on changes in Mediawiki as opposed to User side Scribunto modules, which it is clear this would be implemented as:-

"Feature summary (what you would like to be able to do and where):

Mix two colors based on their XYZ or RGB values, using a subtractive model such as (Kubelka-Munk theory), generating a result which can be supplied as a color in situations where a CSS color would typically be provided.

Use case(s) (list the steps that you performed to discover that problem, and describe the actual underlying problem which you want to solve. Do not describe only a solution):

The specfic use case is at: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_color_printer_(1892).djvu/29 where the 'mixed' inks are based on a 'parts' mix of 2 or more defined base inks.

The current approach https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Module:The_Color_Printer_tone and https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Module:The_Color_Printer_tone/data uses as weighted blend as an interim measure ( this is understood to be an additive approach and thus may not reflect the behaviour intended in the original printed work.)

Benefits (why should this be implemented?):

Being able to mix color subtractively would assist in being able to potentially more accurately determine and transcribe diagramatic colors in older works. The desire for an algorithmic approach, would reduce the need to manually determine mixes, and allow for colors to be adjusted en-masse in a single location, if the 'base' inks were 'corrected' to account for efforts to 'defade' them.

A MIT Licensed library Spectral.JS exists. (https://github.com/rvanwijnen/spectral.js) which if adapted into a set of functions in a Module:Colormix that could be called from the above mentioned module, would meet the use case quite well.

Beyond the specfic use case provided, being able to support a 'subtractive' (albiet approximated model) more directly would assist various color theory topics on other Wikimedia projects."

I've asked here because I felt a module like this might have wider applicability. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds interesting and feasible. Might be a good use of wikifunctions too? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Already put in a request : f:Wikifunctions:Suggest a function#Subtractive color mix_(Pigment_style) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to use string.gsub to replace space characters with %20 to make a URL work correctly. However gsub sees the %2 and treats it as a capture. I've tried escaping things like %%20 and %%%20. Any suggestions please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure %%20 didn't solve the issue? Make sure you replace capturing terms on both the matching string and the replacement string, since both can use capture group references. If it still doesn't work, could you point to the code where this happens? Aidan9382 _(talk) 14:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I think that it works for me. When I write =string.gsub ("t t", ' ', '%%20') in the debug console, I get t%20t. That's what you want, right? Also, if you don't need to know how many space characters were replaced: mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua reference manual#mw.uri.encode: =mw.uri.encode ('t t', 'PATH') → t%20t

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes thanks both, that is working now. I had another gsub in the next line of the code so I have put this one after both. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I recently rewrote {{OSM Location map}} in Lua (vastly improved performance along with extra features). I have now been asked on the talk page if it might be available via commons to allow other language wikis to use it. Is that an option? and is it desirable? The template has a small amount of embeded bits of text, grouped together to make at least superficial translation possible. For that, plus the documentation, a pasted and customised language specific versions seem to me to make more sense. (A full-blown translation of all parameters etc would be a major piece of work, though).

Having looked at a couple of the 49 versions already on other language wikis, these appear to still be the old template version (or in some cases the 'graph' based broken version of 3 years ago). Is there any mechanism for these to update to the lua module in some way? or alerting someone at the relevant wikis? Thanks for any insights on these issues. RobinLeicester (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Cross-wiki transclusion is not possible, so putting it on Commons is not helpful. (You can scroll through the children of phab:T121470 for an hour or two if you want for all the wishing.)

Supporting translation of output text is trivial and I try to do it with every module I work on (a prior piece of presently unused work might be illustrative). Supporting true translation of parameters (i.e. supporting both English and local language versions) is a bit more difficult but I don't think so difficult as major piece of work, per se. You can look through how Module:Citation/CS1 does things if you want, which is the only module locally I know that does it the full way. (There is a foreign module on a few wikis called I18n lying around that I guess makes these things somewhat easier...? It only seems to clog up our local transclusion lists whenever it gets recreated here since we're one of the wikis that can take care of ourselves on the point.)

Something to review is potentially mw:Synchronizer if you don't mind supporting other wiki use cases, which I guess somewhat answers your 'update to the Lua module'. Note that while this template may exist elsewhere, it may not do the exact same things elsewhere, even ignoring differences of parameter names. Otherwise you're essentially on the hook to alert the other wikis yourself. Putting comments at the relevant talk pages would be step 1, then at local equivalents of WP:VPT or WP:AN possibly (since protection may be a concern to deal with), and then probably step 3 of doing it yourself is to do it yourself.

Some minor code suggestions since you are here:

1. If I have the choice, I try to initialize tables with the relevant values directly rather than appending new values many times in a row, as this module currently does through the first couple dozen lines. This is generally faster in non-interpreted languages so I'd guess that extends to here also.
2. Consider where possible using TemplateStyles rather than inline CSS. It's just nicer to edit and I assume it's nicer for browsers to consume at the end of the day, etc.
3. Add whitespace around math symbols and after commas please ;_;.
4. Consistent capitalization of function names at least.

Izno (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Izno has good ideas and I would add that consistent indentation (using tabs) would be nice. I can do that in the sandbox if you like but it would generate an ugly diff. Please investigate colorCap which is an undefined global used once. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to Tule-hog's work at Template talk:Copied#Backend rewrite, the backend of {{Afd-merged-from}} can be rewritten to invoke Module:Copied, much like the rewrite at Template talk:Merged-from#Backend rewrite. Because I have zero experience in such matters: is this a bad idea? If potentially controversial, would I ask VPT or some other venue? FWIW, consensus for rewriting {{merged-from}} was assessed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 March 12#Template:Merged-from (no consensus against rewriting the backend of the merged-from template, so long as it doesn't affect functionality). Thanks in advanced! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

What do you think would make it potentially a bad idea? There's no issue with using one module for multiple templates, which is the only concern I can conceive someone potentially having. Izno (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Less concept- and more implementation-wise: I just don't know how much Module:Copied would need to be changed, and if adding to the module to minimize changes to Afd-merged-from is a good idea.

When I copied merged-from's code to Template:Afd-merged-from/sandbox and changed it, the results at Template:Afd-merged-from/testcases (unsurprisingly) look like {{merged-from|...|afd=...}}. This brought up three questions:

• Should I also change Module:Copied to keep the original wording of Afd-merged-from, especially The discussion was closed on {{{3}}} missing from the merged-from lookalikes?
• Invoking the module allows the template to fail more gracefully.
  • At the moment, omitting the AfD page name from {{Afd-merged-from/sandbox}} documents a normal merge unrelated to a deletion discussion. Should it instead assume the AfD page name and the merge source are the same? That is, adding {{{1}}}} to form |afd1={{{afd|{{{afd1|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}}}}}?
  • Or should it instead not fail gracefully if that parameter is missing?

If I need to clarify something, please feel free to let me know. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll change as little as possible and see how it goes. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm hoping I'm posting in the right place. A very new editor just created Module:RandomWikiverse and I'm not sure if it's valid or just some sort of experiment because I know nothing about modules. Can someone who does know something review this page? Thank you, in advance, for your help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it returns a randomly selected phrase from its list of phrases but seems otherwise pointless

{{#invoke:RandomWikiverse|random}} → Underground Gummy Bear Societies (refresh this page to get another phrase)

Nothing in it seems valuable to me so can probably be deleted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Module:Random could do the same thing trivially. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

It was created on 28th June, and remains unused. Editor hasn't edited since. Looks like a test that has been completed. It should be deleted or moved under Module:Sandbox. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Any LUA Regex experts who might be able to help me? Trying to write a regex with an or statement in it but my understanding is that LUA doesn’t support or statements in their regexes. So for example if I’m trying to detect a month in a date I would normally do something like:

\d+\s*(Jan|January|Feb|February|…)\s*\d{4}

How can I achieve the same result with a regex in LUA? —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The first idea that comes to my mind is just using a regular (%a+) catch and then manually checking the content of the group in lua code to see if it matches a known month, since lua regex is far more simplistic than standard regexes. Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

As did I:

string.match ("17 September 2025", "%d+%s*(%a+)%s*%d%d%d%d") – validate the returned value as a next step

Or one of these:

mw.language.getContentLanguage():formatDate ("M", "17 September 2025") – returns Sep

mw.language.getContentLanguage():formatDate ("F", "17 September 2025") – returns September

mw.language.getContentLanguage():formatDate ("m", "17 September 2025") – returns 09

mw.language.getContentLanguage():formatDate ("n", "17 September 2025") – returns 9

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks!!! —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

What are you actually trying to do? Maybe {{extract}}. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Tech News: 2025-40:

Lua modules will be able to use the mw.title.newBatch function to look up the existence of up to 25 pages at once, in a way that only increases the expensive function count once. See mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua reference manual#mw.title.newBatch. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

That will be really useful. Thanks for the tip — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

We are looking for a volunteer to help expand (or redo) a module that takes a dozen params and builds a wikitable row from it. We have a very rudimentary version at Module:RSPTest that reads a data file and dumps just two of the dozen (and as an enumerated list, not a table row). This would be used to recreate a large table without templates, that currently uses a lot of templates and therefore sometimes exceeds WP:PEIS limits.

The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page contains a large table with a summary of Wikipedia editor opinion about source reliability derived from previous discussions and rfcs at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. (Example: WP:BALLOTPEDIA ⟶ direct link to the table row.) The Perennnial sources table is at 498 rows and is bumping up against PEIS limits because of numerous templates in each table row, and has exceeded the limit several times. Various stopgaps have been employed to rescue the table from the brink, but it has been clear for some time that a more permanent solution is needed, and this has been under intense discussion for a month at WT:RSP#Addressing hard template limits. We have identified several possible approaches going forward which will end up at an Rfc soon for community feedback, but we need assistance in demonstrating one of them, that we call the "row-builder module approach", and in particular, measuring how well it does with PEIS reduction, so that we can inform participants in an Rfc how many more rows we would likely have room for in the table if that approach were implemented, and therefore how long that approach might be viable.

We could use some assistance from a Lua volunteer to help build this row-builder module. The module would take a dozen or so parameters containing things like: source name (e.g., 'Ballotpedia'), status (nc for 'no consensus'), discussion links, rfc links, a synopsis, and so on, and emit a table row that would render as closely as possible to the way that the current table row renders, only with greatly reduced use of templates, thus significantly lowering WP:PEIS and allowing the table to expand further. (There is also a non-table approach among the options, but that is not relevant here.) The complete Talk page discussion about reducing PEIS is very long, but the part about the row-builder module approach is digestible; some of the earlier comments are out of date from evolution later. Jump down to subsection WP:RSP#Python demo to see where we are now, or run {{RSPTest}} in ExpandTemplates for a mini-demo.

I suspect it would not take a Lua programmer very much effort to create a row-builder module. If you can help out, please let us know, it would be for a good cause! Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

To clarify as a participant, IIRC the current plan is for the full module to be invoked like {{RSP row|name=Aaron Is Awesome|alias1=AIA|status=gu|deprecated=y|summary={insert wikitext here}|domain1=example.org|domain2=example.com|discussions=[[link|1]]<br/>[[VGRS link|A]]|last=2018}}, with RSP row as a wrapper template for the module. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Why do that? Why not create a module that reads the data file and spits out an html table? When PEIS is a problem, templates like {{RSP row}} are contributors to that problem.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, it's better just to have the module do Everything. But at the end of the day, PEIS is going to win no matter what. You're going to need to either 1) give up templates or 2) split the page. And giving up templates is only going to take you so far because you will eventually hit max page size. That's the story. Izno (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The hope is to make editing easier. For example, this would allow editing with VE and associated syntax highlighting of Wikitext.

We could also build a toolforge site interface to edit the data module read from, but at that point I personally would go for the landing pages for each source + toolforge site that coverts them into a table approach instead. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Could someone explain why we have the following messy modules and clarify which are being used?

• Module:RSP
• Module:RSP/sandbox
• Module:RSPTest
• Module:RSPTest/sandbox

I am happy to history merge or whatever but this is a bit past the point of reasonable.... Izno (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly these should've been under Module:Sandbox. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

No histmerge needed; what you see at Module:RSPTest (and sandbox) is my first (ever) Lua module, so "messy" is going to be a defining characteristic (except for the bits added by Aidan9382 – thanks!). I had not seen Module:RSP before, but it is by Audiodude who recently joined the effort and has already made major contributions; that module appears to be used in his User:Audiodude/RSP demo, invoking it once per row. I think it's fine that there are competing modules attempting to find the best solution. Neither of them is in use in the live perennial sources table. (As a procedural matter, if Module space isn't the place for an in-progress development please lmk, I can move mine to user space as well; it is however being used at the Talk page WT:RSP as part of the discussion about developing an Rfc about the PEIS issue.)

Regarding the inherent limitations of giving up templates, we are well aware. There is a two-fold involvement of templates in building the Perennial sources table:

• several are used in every row, such as WP:RSPSHORTCUT, a big contributor to PEIS (but hardly the only one), and
• the main table at WP:RSPSOURCES is a transclusion of eight subtables at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/1 – 8.

The row-builder module approach attacks the first, and the One giant table approach approach attacks the second. I should add that we have tested the latter at WP:RSPGIANT and found that a huge table would still be viable at 94% PEIS with an additional 600 rows. Now we are testing the former, hence this request. (The third approach avoids tables entirely.)

This comment is just by way of a quick intro to what has been going on at WT:RSP#Addressing hard template limits over the last month, and any substantive contributions to the topic should be made there. It is quite long, and I am happy to summarize or answer questions about it here if that would help. For now, the need is most great in the row-builder approach which requires Lua chops, and Aidan has been helping out there. Contributions to the Module, its TP, or at WT:RSP are most welcome. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

For "I'm testing still and have no idea what I'm doing", Special:Prefixindex/Module:Sandbox/ is the right place. I can say confidently that what currently lives at Module:RSP would normally live there.

As for the other three, it's unusual to sprout two modules at the same time doing the same thing. (And certainly we prefer not to deal with forks generally.) Please figure out which module between the two of you you want to keep "alive" as it were and/or consider merging the other there (and if not, decide which can be a reasonable sandbox and move it to a sandbox of the other). Naming is an issue with the current batch, so whenever you do please rename that one to something that can be understood at a glance.

The alternative is to move those over also to some module sandbox pages as with the currently primary-named module. I would favor that here I think, as it makes it obvious these are experiments with potentially no further use after they're done. Izno (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes I am responsible for Module:RSP and Module:RSP/sandbox. I was not aware of Module:Sandbox and thought that Module:RSP/sandbox was the proper place for experimental code. audiodude (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Module:RSP/sandbox probably is a reasonable title for a sandbox for Module:RSP. Module:Sandbox is documented as being a namespace for user sandboxes. OTOH, Module:RSP itself is pretty sandboxy and could reasonably go under Module:Sandbox until it's ready to be used in production. Anomie⚔ 22:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

We have a problem to solve with PEIS, and we would keep the one that best helps solve it. Merging would defeat the purpose. Or, we would abandon both of them, if a different approach is chosen. If one of the module approaches does become the solution of choice, then it would become integral to the display of a live Perennial sources table.

Have we exposed what these developing modules are actually doing? This one is not a finished product – and not meant to be; the underlying data file isn't complete, either – but here it is, applied to one of the eight subtables (#5) of the Perennial sources (which happens to start with 'M' sources):

More information Demo of Module:RSPTest as invoked by template, Source ...

Demo of Module:RSPTest as invoked by template

Perennial sources Source Status (legend) Discussions Use List Last Summary Mail & Guardian gr  2021 2021 The Mail & Guardian is a South African newspaper. There is consensus that it is generally reliable. The Mail on Sunday d  2020 2020 There is clear and substantial consensus that the Mail on Sunday is generally unreliable, and a slightly narrower consensus that the source should be deprecated. Marquis Who's Who (Who's Who in America) gu 2022 Marquis Who's Who, including its publication Who's Who in America, is considered generally unreliable. As most of its content is provided by the person concerned, editors generally consider Marquis Who's Who comparable to a self-published source. There is a broad consensus that Marquis Who's Who should not be used to establish notability for article topics. See also: {{pslink|Who's Who (UK)}}. Mashable (non-sponsored content) WP:MASHABLE nc  2021 2021 In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus that while non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus. Mashable (sponsored content) gu  2021 2021 In the RfC, editors achieved a consensus that extra attention needs to be paid when it comes to sponsored content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves. The Mary Sue WP:THEMARYSUE gr 2022 There is consensus that The Mary Sue is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Mary Sue biased or opinionated. Opinions should be attributed. MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) WP:MDPI nc 2021 Publications in MDPI journals are considered questionable. Editors have raised concerns about the robustness of MDPI's peer review process and their lack of selectivity in what they publish. Originally placed on Beall's List of predatory open journals in 2014, MDPI was removed from the list in 2015, while applying pressure on Beall's employer. As of early 2024, about 5% of MDPI journals had been rejected by the Norwegian Scientific Index, and another 5% are under review.[1] MEAWW (Media Entertainment Arts WorldWide) gu 2021 MEAWW is a tabloid site covering pop culture and the internet. The site often employs clickbait and is considered generally unreliable. Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) WP:MB/FC gu 2025 There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings. Media Matters for America (MMfA) WP:MEDIAMATTERS nc  2010  2019 2023 There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed. Media Research Center (MRC, CNSNews.com, Cybercast News Service, MRCTV, NewsBusters) WP:MRC gu  2010  2019  2020 2020 There is consensus that the Media Research Center and its subdivisions (e.g. CNSNews.com, MRCTV, and NewsBusters) are generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors believe these sources publish false or fabricated information. As biased or opinionated sources, their statements should be attributed. Mediaite WP:MEDIAITE nc 2023 There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement. Medium (website) WP:MEDIUM gu  2022 2022 Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. A 2022 RfC also found that Cuepoint, Medium's music publication, is marginally reliable, with editors stating that its reliability depends on the qualification of the author. Meduza gr  2025 2025 Meduza is a news outlet run by Russian dissidents. There is consensus that it is generally reliable. Metacritic (GameRankings) WP:METACRITIC gr 2017 Metacritic is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film, TV, and video games. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Metacritic are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Metacritic are not automatically reliable for their reviews. In December 2019, video game aggregate site GameRankings shut down and merged with Metacritic; GameRankings's content is no longer accessible unless archived.[2][3][4] Metal-experience.com WP:METALEXPERIENCE gu  2021 2021 Metal-experience.com was determined to be generally unreliable for factual reporting. MetalSucks nc 2018 MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. Avoid its overly satirical content and exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement. Metro (British newspaper) (UK) WP:METRO gu 2025 Daily Mail}} and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. The newspaper articles were previously segregated online via the metro.news domain and are presently tagged under "metro newspaper" at the metro.co.uk domain. Metro (British newspaper) (UK) (soap operas) WP:METROSOAPS gr 2025 There is consensus that the Metro is reliable as a source on soap operas. Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) WP:MEMRI nc  2020 2023 The reliability of MEMRI is considered to lie between no consensus and generally unreliable. Many editors argue that MEMRI has a history of providing misleading coverage and that the source should be used with caution if at all. Middle East Monitor (MEMO) WP:MEMO nc 2024 There is no consensus over the reliability of Middle East Monitor (MEMO). Previously consensus was established that it is a partisan think tank, with opinions ranging from "sometimes usable with attribution" to "unreliable". MintPress News WP:MINTPRESS d  2019 2025 MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. Le Monde diplomatique WP:LEMONDEDIPLOMATIQUE gr 2018 There is consensus that Le Monde diplomatique is generally reliable. Some editors consider Le Monde diplomatique to be a biased and opinionated source. Mondoweiss WP:MONDOWEISS nc  2024 2024 Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. Morning Star (British newspaper) (UK) nc 2024 The Morning Star describes itself as a British "reader-owned co-operative and unique as a lone socialist voice in a sea of corporate media" and has low circulation. There is no consensus on whether the Morning Star engages in factual reporting, and broad consensus that it is a biased and partisan source. All uses of the Morning Star should be attributed. Take care to ensure that content from the Morning Star constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Mother Jones (magazine) (MoJo) WP:MOTHERJONES gr 2019 There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. MSNBC WP:MSNBC gr  2020 2022 There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable. Talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. See also: {{pslink|NBC News}} MyLife (Reunion.com) gu 2019 Due to persistent abuse, MyLife is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. MyLife (formerly known as Reunion.com) is an information broker that publishes user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable. The Nation WP:THENATION gr 2022 There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. In the "About" section of their website, they identify as progressive. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. National Enquirer d  2019 2019 The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that is considered generally unreliable. In the 2019 RfC, there was weak consensus to deprecate the National Enquirer as a source, but no consensus to create an edit filter to warn editors against using the publication. National Geographic (Nat Geo) WP:NATGEO gr 2023 There is consensus that National Geographic is generally reliable. For coverage by National Geographic of fringe topics and ideas, due weight and parity of sources should be considered. National Post (Postmedia Network) WP:NATIONALPOST gr  2024 2024 National Post is considered to be a generally reliable newspaper. National Review (NR) WP:NATIONALREVIEW nc 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Natural News (NewsTarget) WP:NATURALNEWS gu 2019 Due to persistent abuse, Natural News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. There is a near-unanimous consensus that the site repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, including an exceptionally large number of conspiracy theories. NBC News WP:NBC gr 2024 MSNBC}} The Needle Drop WP:FANTANO nc  2021 2021 There is consensus that additional considerations apply when considering whether the use of The Needle Drop as a source is appropriate. There is currently strong consensus that Anthony Fantano's reviews that are published via The Needle Drop are self-published sources. There is currently rough consensus that Fantano is considered to be an established subject-matter expert as it pertains to music reviews and that these reviews may be used in an article as attributed opinion. However, per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party claims about living people. There is also currently a rough consensus that Fantano's reviews do not always constitute due weight and that discretion should be applied on a case-by-case basis when determining if a review from The Needle Drop is appropriate to include in a given article. Articles on the theneedledrop.com website are unreliable due to a lack of an editorial policy. The New American WP:NEWAMERICAN gu 2016 There is consensus that The New American is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors consider it usable for attributed opinions regarding the John Birch Society. New Eastern Outlook d  2022 2022 In the 2022 RfC, there is consensus to deprecate New Eastern Outlook. Editors note that it is considered a Russian propaganda outlet by multiple reliable sources, and numerous examples of publishing false content. The New Republic WP:NEWREPUBLIC gr  2020 2024 There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed. New York (magazine) (Vulture, The Cut, Grub Street, Daily Intelligencer) WP:RSPVULTURE gr 2021 Polygon (pre-2025)}}, {{pslink|The Verge}}, {{pslink|Vox}} New York Daily News (Illustrated Daily News) WP:NYDN gr 2020 Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines. New York Post (NY Post, New York Evening Post, Page Six) (excluding entertainment) WP:NYPOST gu  2020 2024 This consensus does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same name, that existed from 1801–1942. New York Post (NY Post, New York Evening Post, Page Six, Decider) (entertainment) WP:PAGESIX nc  2024 2024 There is consensus that the New York Post ({{duses|nypost.com}}) and its sub-publications Decider ({{duses|decider.com}}) and Page Six are considered to be marginally reliable sources for entertainment coverage, including reviews, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons. The New York Times (NYT) WP:NYTIMES gr  2018 2024 There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims. The New Yorker gr 2011 There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process. The New Zealand Herald (NZ Herald) gr  2021 2023 There is consensus that The New Zealand Herald is generally reliable. News of the World WP:NEWSOFTHEWORLD d  2019 2021 The Sun}}, News of the World should not be used as a reference in most cases aside from about-self usage, and should not be used to determine notability. Some editors consider News of the World usable for uncontroversial film reviews if attribution is provided. News of the World shut down in 2011; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. NewsBlaze d  2021 2021 NewsBlaze was unanimously deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the 2021 RfC. Editors cite NewsBlaze's publication of false and/or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, the site's sourcing practices, and copyright concerns. NewsBreak (News Break) WP:NEWSBREAK d  2020 2020 NewsBreak is a news aggregator that publishes snippets of articles from other sources. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate NewsBreak in favor of the original sources. NewsFront (website) WP:NEWSFRONT d  2019 2019 Due to persistent abuse, NewsFront is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. NewsFront was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and Russian propaganda. The use of NewsFront as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. NewsFront should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles. Newslaundry gr  2020 2020 There is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. Some editors have expressed concerns regarding possible bias in its political narratives and reporting on rival publications; in cases where this could reasonably apply, attribution is recommended, and sufficient. Newsmax WP:NEWSMAX d  2020 2022 Newsmax was deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as COVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda. NewsNation (general topics) WP:NEWSNATION gr  2025 2025 NewsNation (UFOs, UAPs)}}. NewsNation (UFOs, UAPs) WP:UFONATION gu  2025 2025 There is a consensus that NewsNation is generally unreliable for the topic of UFOs or UAPs. Editors pointed to NewsNation's lead reporter on UFOs, Ross Coulthart, having a well-documented history of promoting conspiracy theories in that topic area. See also: {{pslink|NewsNation (general topics)}}. Newsweek (pre-2013) gr  2019 2019 There is consensus that articles from Newsweek pre-2013 are generally reliable for news covered during that time. In 2011, Newsweek was a reputable magazine with only some minor problems while it was owned by The Newsweek Daily Beast Company (which also owned {{pslink|The Daily Beast}}). Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy. See also: Newsweek (2013–present). Newsweek (2013–present) WP:NEWSWEEK nc  2019 2024 Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of {{pslink|International Business Times}}. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek{{'}}s quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. In addition, as of April 2024, Newsweek has disclosed that they make use of AI assistance to write articles. See also: {{pslink|Newsweek (pre-2013)}}. The Next Web (TNW) nc 2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of The Next Web. Articles written by contributors may be subject to reduced or no editorial oversight. Avoid using The Next Web's sponsored content. NGO Monitor (Non-governmental Organization Monitor) WP:NGOMONITOR gu  2024 2024 There is a consensus that NGO Monitor is not reliable for facts. Editors agree that, despite attempts to portray itself otherwise, it is an advocacy organization whose primary goal is to attack organizations that disagree with it or with the Israeli government regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Some editors also express concern about past attempts by NGO Monitor staff to manipulate coverage of itself on Wikipedia. NME (New Musical Express) WP:RSPNME gr 2020 There is consensus that British publication NME is generally reliable for content related to its areas of expertise, which include music. NNDB (Notable Names Database) WP:NNDB d  2019 2019 NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of shock site Rotten.com. It was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Editors note NNDB's poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, despite the site claiming to have an editorial process. Editors have also found instances of NNDB incorporating content from Wikipedia, which would make the use of the affected pages circular sourcing. NPR (National Public Radio) WP:RSPNPR gr 2024 There is consensus that NPR, an American public service broadcaster, is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution.

Close

but it's changing all the time. I am fine with moving Module:RSPTest to userspace, some sandbox (of what? Module:Sandbox/sandbox?), or anywhere else if its current location is suboptimal. (edit conflict) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Module:Sandbox/Mathglot/whatever subpage name you want since it's your module user space.

Merging would defeat the purpose. Modules can expose multiple end points for use, which is one way in which they differ from templates. A second way they are different is that they are not penalized for expansion size so long as you keep everything in Lua space (i.e. the output of a module's endpoint is all that matters for PEIS, not how large the module itself is). Module:Perennial sources (which is perhaps the name that I think I favor now, since not all of them are reliable) could expose a function row which does the thing you are looking at and also a whole_table for the thing you're also looking at. (A module that does this in production today is Module:Sidebar, one endpoint for {{sidebar}} and another for {{sidebar with collapsible groups}}.) The only tradeoff with a single module is the potential for edit conflicts, but I expect those would be rare if there are two people working on two separate sets of functionality.

Where you do pay with a module is if you decide to invoke it through a template, i.e. Page uses template row calling Module:Perennial sources.row(), rather than Page calls Module:Perennial sources.row() directly. Izno (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this and agree prototyping should be under Module:Sandbox, but I do not understand your last sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand it to mean that invoking the module directly (ie., coding {{#invoke: Row-builder |...}}) does not incur a PEIS cost, but invoking the module via a template (i.e., coding {{Row builder|...}}, where {{Row builder}} contains the line {{#invoke: Row-builder |...}}) does incur a PEIS cost. Mathglot (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Ish. You still have a PEIS cost either way, but going through the template hits this known cost. Izno (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Whew; thanks for that. There are more subtle twists and turns involved with PEIS than I knew about. All the more reason to have a test module to get some RW data rather than trying to guess at it. Mathglot (talk)

Ultimately, there's a maximum page size, regardless if the bytes are written out manually or created by a template or module. As the generated text from Lua modules is not parsed further to expand templates, the byte count contributed by the module towards the maximum page size is the same as the actual number of bytes produced, as I understand it. So if you can define the intended (template-less) output, you can count the bytes to determine the effect regarding page size, without writing the code. (Of course, to get an idea of performance, a prototype of some sort would be needed.) isaacl (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:High-use § Updating the icon. FaviFake (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Page watchers may be interested in this discussion: Template talk:Talk header § Module:Archives rewrite and question. Izno (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)