This is a draft Signpost article, a work in progress that should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the reporter with regular responsibility for this feature and the editor-in-chief. If you would like to contribute, please leave a note in the Newsroom or a comment on the talkpage. If you are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making additions. Thank you for your interest!
One of the very different signs at the Elephanta Caves in India—the subject of extended discussion at WT:FAC (see below)Another sign providing quite different information at the same siteMuseum 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: {{cite sign}}. The template was renamed from {{cite visual}}, where the previous name was seen as redundant with {{cite video}}. However, during the TfD, it was determined that {{cite visual}} was also being used in at least a few articles to cite another form of visual media: signs. After being moved to {{cite sign}}, it was modified to better fit the new purpose by Plastikspork. The new template (still in development) currently renders {{Cite sign|title=The Underwater Archaeology Centre|url= |date=2006|medium=Plaque outside museum|publisher=The Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology|location=[[Fort Victoria (Isle of Wight)|Fort Victoria]]}} as:
The Underwater Archaeology Centre (Plaque outside museum). Fort Victoria: The Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology. 2006.
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:
An official sign is generally an attributable (or verifiable) document. If it's produced by some historical society and/or city government, it's a reliable source, since it normally undergoes quite a bit of vetting by different people before it's posted. I would consider it a primary source since it is typically created by people connected or related to the material in the sign. Also, knowing which organization produced the sign is important, although if it's in a public place and seems official, odds are good it was produced by an official agency.
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?
A signboard by a tourist company near Elephanta Caves
If a sign-board is put by an known official party (ref 1, 2), then IMO it must be considered a RS. It is like placing information on a website by the official party. Though if the creator of the signboard is unclear/unknown (3)/unreliable(4) like the third sign-board, then its accuracy can be questioned.
Discuss this story
I am not sure if a special story in the Signpost is an appropriate way to cover this topic.
As far as I can see, these discussion haven't been very widely attended. They haven't even led to changes in the corresponding guidelines (WP:RS and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria) yet. Has this issue drawn wider attention or other activities, like a community-wide poll?
So far, I have trouble seeing what might set out this topic to be of special interest for Signpost readers, compared to the many more current and recent RfC, and current discussions that we haven't covered. HaeB (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think it is a good idea, journalism-wise, to cover current debates that oneself is strongly involved in, especially not if the Signpost article is making assertions about the outcomes of such debates and stating what the "general consensus" was. (See also this deletion discussion about the redirect that Noraft created and cited in the first RfC.)
To ask for technical assistance in constructing a new template, WP:VPT or Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates might be a more appropriate forum than the Signpost.
For each of these problems, there may be a good way to address it. And I don't mean to discourage Noraft from contributing to the Signpost at all, in fact help in resurrecting the "Discussion report" (the way in which the Signpost has covered notable RfCs and similar current debates previously) would be greatly welcome. However, I don't think it is a good idea to publish the article in its present state in this week's edition.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]