Editing Eurovision Wiki:Discussions for discussion (section)

== RS RFC: Olympedia ==

[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Olympedia]] was openned almost 90 days ago. I'm hoping there might be some collaboration to close it. I don't have much experience with RSN. What's the pragmatic difference between #1 (reliable) and #5 (reliable with caveats)? Many of the !votes are for 1 or 5, but I'm not clear on the practical distinction. If the outcome were #5, where would the caveats be documented? Would the outcome be a basis for deleting edits on biographical material? If there's not consensus for that should those concerns be still noted in the close?

{{tq2|Which describes the reliability of Olympedia best:
# The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
# There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
# The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
# The source is recognized as being generally unreliable and should be deprecated.
# The source is: Generally reliable for sports-statistics data; Of unclear reliability for biographical data; and Not independent of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).}}
[[User:Dw31415|<span style="background-color: snow; font-family: 'Linux Libertine', 'Georgia', 'Times', 'Source Serif Pro', serif">Dw31415</span>]] ([[User talk:Dw31415#top|talk]]) 14:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
:1 means it's generally reliable for all purposes. 5 means it's generally reliable for sports-statistics data and "of unclear reliability" for biographical data. If you're not clear on what those distinctions mean practically, I don't think you should be closing this discussion. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 17:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
::Glancing through the discussion, I see that I fortuitously participated in the discussion and am therefore exempt from closing it.  It's now at the top of [[Wikipedia:Closure requests#Requests for comment]] and will presumably be addressed in due course.  As general advice, if anyone who is reading this wants to close it, I think the most workable theme might be what wasn't agreed to, rather than what was.
::I think that discussion is a good example of how the four-option model for [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]] does not fit the community's needs for every source. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
: I unarchived and updated the link [[User:Dw31415|<span style="background-color: snow; font-family: 'Linux Libertine', 'Georgia', 'Times', 'Source Serif Pro', serif">Dw31415</span>]] ([[User talk:Dw31415#top|talk]]) 16:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
::You should've waited for the closer to do that. There's no reason to unarchive before someone is closing it. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 17:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Is that your opinion, recent practice or community consensus? [[User:Dw31415|<span style="background-color: snow; font-family: 'Linux Libertine', 'Georgia', 'Times', 'Source Serif Pro', serif">Dw31415</span>]] ([[User talk:Dw31415#top|talk]]) 19:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
::::I see the 5 day archive setting so I see that is a factor. [[User:Dw31415|<span style="background-color: snow; font-family: 'Linux Libertine', 'Georgia', 'Times', 'Source Serif Pro', serif">Dw31415</span>]] ([[User talk:Dw31415#top|talk]]) 19:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::This is pointless, as there is already a close request at [[WP:CR#Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Olympedia]], unarchiving won't close it any sooner and anyone who would close it would have unarchived it when they did (which is what I thought you had done). As it is it will be archived again in a few days. Restoring 100k of text ina discussion that is just waiting a close only negatively impacts the functioning of the noticeboard -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::The RSN noticeboard is regularly overburdened, that's why the archiving is set to five days. Restoring this was a mistake, that will negatively impact other editors. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for explaining. [[User:Dw31415|<span style="background-color: snow; font-family: 'Linux Libertine', 'Georgia', 'Times', 'Source Serif Pro', serif">Dw31415</span>]] ([[User talk:Dw31415#top|talk]]) 20:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::P.s., would the [[Template:Archive now]] been an easy way to fix the unarchiving?  Is there a reason you didn’t suggest undoing the edit? One of the things I love about WP is how easy it is to fix mistakes.  [[User:Dw31415|<span style="background-color: snow; font-family: 'Linux Libertine', 'Georgia', 'Times', 'Source Serif Pro', serif">Dw31415</span>]] ([[User talk:Dw31415#top|talk]]) 09:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
*Disclosure: I !voted and I have a longstanding position against articles being sourced only to online databases in general and Olympedia in particular.{{pb}}I feel the closer of that discussion needs to take into account the following things:{{pb}}1. Someone's obfuscated the identity of the editor who asked the question. They're allowed to, rather frustratingly, but the closer always needs to establish who did that, when, and why. Also establish whether the question changed during the course of the debate, and if so when, why, and who changed it.{{pb}}2. The discussion includes matters that weren't explicitly part of the question. In particular there's a lot about whether Olympedia is an independent source, which in context might actually be about notability rather than reliability. In closing, be mindful that the community isn't constrained to only consider the RFC question. I think the distinction between options 1 and 5 is that option 1 has this online database as an unqualified suitable source for a BLP, and option 5 has it as a suitable source but not a suitable sole source.{{pb}}3. Be mindful of how many articles this RFC affects (it's thousands) and the long and political history of Lugnuts, Wikipedia's most prolific article starter ever, who is now sitebanned. Consider the circumstances in which Arbcom banned him.{{pb}}4. Consider the long and bitterly political history of sports notability guidelines.{{pb}}5. Back the hell away and let a panel of experienced sysops take the inevitable flak from closing this one. Where angels fear to tread, etc.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
*:On #1, it's usually easy enough to find those diffs.  Usually, you can start with Legobot's edits ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1322968276 here]; easily [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Legobot&page=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&server=enwiki&max= found through this tool]) and click "Previous edit" a couple of times.  I'm not sure it is that important, though.  In theory, the fact that it was started by someone who holds a strong POV against this source shouldn't matter, and the specific motivation is described in the discussion. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks to {{reply to|Vanamonde93}} for the close. I should have written down how I would have closed it because I think it was similar to this (but that’s easy to say in retrospect). I think I would have been more concise to say there was consensus for reliability on statistics but that the RfC was too muddled to discern a consensus on the question of biographies. That those wishing to make a change there should address that question specifically. 
:I hope I write that to learn what the communities expectations are here, although it’s never too great to be told to back the hell away even if it’s because I’m running with scissors. (Mixing my metaphors). Anyway, thanks for reading this and good night/good day to you. [[User:Dw31415|<span style="background-color: snow; font-family: 'Linux Libertine', 'Georgia', 'Times', 'Source Serif Pro', serif">Dw31415</span>]] ([[User talk:Dw31415#top|talk]]) 05:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::I prefer not to have editors opine about how they would close a discussion. If the close ends up being close to what was suggested by the peanut gallery it might look like adapting the close of a likely involved editor or if it's far away from what was proposed it feels like a preemptive objection to the close and deviations should be explicitly justified. Other closers may have different opinions but for me it doesn't feel helpful at all and may risk biasing the closer. [[User:Trialpears|Trialpears]] ([[User talk:Trialpears|talk]]) 18:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)