Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Is businessinsider.com considered reliable or not? Just asking. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:BI. Einsof (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey everyone i had made Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/List to minimize the load. Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose we add Clownfish TV to the list and I heard they are "Anti-woke grifters" I used to watch them and they are always negative and ruined gaming for me. They destroyed my mental health so I had to stop. Christianhatley527 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Has there been any discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about clownfish TV yet? Mikeycdiamond (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I searched for it, and nothing. All I see is "Clown" in bold. Christianhatley527 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

If there hasn't been any discussions, there isn't consensus. This page requires community consensus on the source. I recommend starting a topic on the noticeboard I previously linked to discuss the source and build consensus. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought this is the place to propose adding sources to the list. The page said if it isn't in the list, start a disscussion. Christianhatley527 (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It said start a discussion "there", which as the page mentioned is RSN. And discussions should only be started if the reliability is unclear. If we're sure about it that's not "Perennial" which means something like "controversial". Aaron Liu (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Are they on WP:YOUTUBE? Have you read the notice on top of this talk page? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but they also have their own website https://clownfishtv.com/about-us/ Christianhatley527 (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there any reason why anyone would consider them more than random joes with a podium? They're a minor Youtube channel, not a leading gaming publication. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

My apologies if this has already been discussed before, but should we move away from color-coding the rows? It can give an outside observer a simplified impression of sources being lumped into "good" and "bad" categories, and discourage them from reading the details of a specific source's reliability. To clarify, I'm not proposing we should remove the "reliable"/"unreliable" ratings from the list altogether, only the row coloring that emphasizes the rating categories instead of the more precise discussion notes. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

As it stands the whole page is meant to be redone per the result of WP:Requests for comment/Restructuring RSP, which I believe would do away with simple colour coding but nothing seems to have happened. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Progress is tracked at Phab:T414382 and freeform discussion's on that RfC's talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! I'll be honest, that RfC went so fast I didn't even catch it. This does indeed sound like a much better solution, and does away with the need for colors entirely. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Aaron Liu. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

If you decide to keep colors for any purpose, you should pick colors that are as colorblind-friendly as possible. I did a bunch of research on this, and the colors I used at WP:CANCER are the best that I could find for colorblind readers. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)