Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#rfc 4B1FB35

There is an ongoing discussion about a draft which will be published under Draft talk:List of legendary rulers of Wales. This is similar to lists to the fellow Celtic nations of Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall, and similar to the listing of the Kings of Britain, again similar to other legendary king lists from other nations. Could we get some consensus on the matter, or if anyone has experience on the topic, could you please join the talk ? Cltjames (talk) 21:00, 07 November 2024 (UTC)

I would appreciate input from more editors into these edits concerning various Americans with the surname Radziwill:

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bouvier_family&diff=1256336134&oldid=1256284100], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bouvier_family&diff=prev&oldid=1256406321], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bouvier_family&diff=prev&oldid=1256411150]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Radziwill&diff=1255994465&oldid=1251721366], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Radziwill&diff=prev&oldid=1256406765], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Radziwill&diff=prev&oldid=1256411677]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carole_Radziwill&diff=prev&oldid=1256335547], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carole_Radziwill&diff=prev&oldid=1256406013], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carole_Radziwill&diff=prev&oldid=1256411193]

The question of whether any of these people wrote their name with the ł instead of a standard English l is also maybe interesting. (It is not necessary to point out that my edit summaries are not entirely civil, nor that I have now reverted twice; I'm not planning on directly engaging further.) Pinging {{u|Unfriendnow}} (the other involved editor). Thanks. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:The Radziwiłs, to quote their article arę "a Polish princely family of Lithuanian origin", though I'm not sure what the current legal status of their title is, as Poland is a republic. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

::That article is almost entirely concerned with people and events of the 16th through 18th centuries (maybe a bit earlier). Our article Stanisław_Albrecht_Radziwiłł#Title (one of the ones Unfriendnow has been trying to pipe to add the word “Prince” instead of linking the article directly) says this: {{tq| According to Debrett's, although known as Prince Radziwiłł in Britain, on becoming a British subject and in keeping with standard practice, Radziwiłł strictly needed permission from Queen Elizabeth II to use his princely title. The Radziwiłł family held the title Prince of the Holy Roman Empire since the early 16th century. However, noble titles were abolished in Poland and Austria.}} The other people are the American woman he was married to from 1959 to 1974, their son (b Switzerland 1959), and his wife (b USA 1963, m 1994). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Would really appreciate additional input on the appropriateness of the edits in my OP. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Constance, Queen of Sicily#Requested move 1 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Constance of Aragon#Requested move 5 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

{{GARMessage|Angevin kings of England|GARpage=1}} Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at :Mashiding Lomandong and assess it per :WP:BIO? Most of the sources cited in the article are to Facebook posts, and the creator might have a :WP:COI. If, however, the subject is notable, those things could possibly be cleaned up or better sources could be found. I'm not sure whether this article would fall within the scope of this project, but the article claims this person is a "sultan" so perhaps it might. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Unknown Archon#Requested move 22 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this person was actually a count, and if so, that he was notable. Please find sources. Ping me if you need any help. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sweyn II of Denmark#Requested move 14 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on the BLP noticeboard here regarding Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII. In July he had a BLP that was deleted. That was actually the second creation of the article (at least), but because the original editor of the latest article used a different title, it looked like it was the first. The first AfD has been blanked as a courtesy. I've opened the discusssion to see if those article titles can be salted. Just an FYI if you want to participate. --19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Gym Samba (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#MOS:POSTNOM for discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eystein I of Norway#Requested move 17 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York#Requested move 23 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Asking because I'm looking at several articles about noble families, which often have poor sourcing, such as WP:SELFPUB blogs or WP:USERGENERATED websites which reject all responsibility for accuracy of information, while other websites appear to be quite reliable and useful for us. It probably won't be worth it to take every single case to WP:RSP, because writing about noble families is usually limited to this WikiProject. So, have we got a list of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research? If so, where can I see it? If not, should we make one? It makes checking the quality of sources for a large set of articles a lot easier. NLeeuw (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:I guess I'm gonna start building up these lists until I get a response, or find lists if there are any. I'll go through both the archives of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=genealogical+websites&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 the Reliable Source Noticeboard] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=genealogical+websites&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+Royalty+and+Nobility%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 WikiProject Royalty and Nobility] for the term "genealogical websites" and variations thereof. Once we have lists of reliable and unreliable websites, we no longer need to reinvent the wheel by assessing whether source A is reliable for article B, but whether source A can be used on enwiki at all, and if so, to be used in multiple other articles that could use some improvements, or if not, require a purge. This may start off as mostly a note-to-self, but this is relevant for everyone working in this content area, and some previous decisions and assessments already apply right now, and have already been implemented over the years, particularly those of WP:RSP. NLeeuw (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

{{legend|#FFBBBB|2=File:Stop hand.svg Deprecated}}

• Peerage websites (self-published)

{{legend|#FFDDDD|File:Argentina - NO symbol.svg Generally unreliable}}

• WP:ANCESTRY.COM (complicated; considered semi-reliable for WP:PRIMARY sources, unreliable for WP:UGC. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=10000&target=http%3A%2F%2Fancestry.com Currently used in 14,509 enwiki pages, but the majority of those are Talk, User talk, or User space pages and not mainspace articles]).
• FamilySearch [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A+FamilySearch&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Currently used in 10,915 (!) enwiki articles]
• Find a Grave [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A+FindaGrave.com&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Currently used in 8,626 (!) enwiki articles] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Ffindagrave.com total enwiki use of "findagrave.com" is 5,364, but the vast majority of those are Talk, User talk, or User space pages and not mainspace articles]. However, Template:Find a Grave is used in approximately 26,000 pages; the template says using it as an external link is fine, but usually not as a reliable source).
• Findmypast [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A+Findmypast&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Currently used in 2,071 (!) enwiki articles]
• Geni.com. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A+Geni.com&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 Currently still used in 5000+ (!) enwiki articles] (excluding some false positives).

{{legend|#DDFFDD|File:Yes Check Circle.svg Generally reliable in its areas of expertise}}

• Burke's Peerage
• Debrett's

: NLeeuw (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 103#Self-published royalty websites {{tq|After over a week's debate, consensus is that these self-published ancestry sources should not be used as sources in biographies of living people. Closing per request at WP:AN/I. – Quadell (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)}} See WP:BLPSPS (biographies of living people - self-published sources). Examples mentioned were:
• http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ "Genealogical Gleanings"
• http://www.royalark.net "Royal Ark"
• http://www.genealogics.org/index.php
• http://thepeerage.com/index.htm NLeeuw (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#Royalcruft again (June 2020) has an in-depth discussion of lots of questionable genealogical websites.
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) was deprecated 1.5 year ago upon my inquiry. It was used in 500+ articles, where we purged it from. This might merit a follow-up for other unreliable genealogical websites which are still currently used as sources in noble families articles. In some cases, removing these unreliable websites will show that the rest of the articles is not really based on anything reliable, and may not pass WP:GNG either. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov for a current example of this. In other cases, we can probably improve articles up to current standards by using reliable websites for multiple articles. So having lists of reliable and unreliable genealogical websites can work well both ways. NLeeuw (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Ffmg.ac%2FProjects%2FMedLands%2F http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ is currently used in 360 times in enwiki pages], 172 of which are Talk: pages (including 37 User talk: pages), 125 are User: pages (excluding User talk: pages), 54 are Wikipedia: pages (Articles for creation, Articles for deletion, RSN, Reference desk, WikiProjects, Featured article candidates, Good article reassessment, Redirects for discussion), 1 Draft: page, 1 MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2019, 2 Portals, and apparently only 5 mainspace article links: Boniface I, Margrave of Tuscany (once) and House of Astarac (4 times). Except for those last 5, there doesn't seem to be a big issue with the http URL of MedLands. However, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=https%3A%2F%2Ffmg.ac%2FProjects%2FMedLands%2F https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ URL of MedLands is currently used 111 times in enwiki pages], 66 of which are Talk: pages (including 6 User talk: pages), 12 are User: pages (excluding User talk: pages), 4 Wikipedia: pages (excluding 1 Wikipedia talk: page), and..... the other 29 pages appear to be URLs in mainspace articles, most of them probably recently added by User:Vittoriobr (who has already been notified below). NLeeuw (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• FamilyTreeDNA familytreedna.com. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Familytreedna.com September 2021. {{xt|Like the others its a hard no, they are basically completely useless for encyclopedic purposes.}} {{xt|No definitely not. A lot of this is just a mish mash of theoreticals even if they did reveal their data sources and linking. As it is for these services, for all we know it's just a random number generator looking up data.}} WP:USERGENERATED. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=familytreedna.com used in 100 enwiki articles].
• Russia Beyond / Russia Beyond the Headlines / rbth.com, part of Russian state-owned RT (TV network) (Russia Today, which has been deprecated per WP:RUSSIATODAY).

{{cot|Reliability of Russia Beyond (the Headlines)}}

Russia Beyond has been discussed on relatively few occasions at RSN so far, but in each case it has been rated negatively in various degrees:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 88#Please check the source (February 2011): reports security issues.
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 196#Sourcing of a reported chemical weapons attacks in the Syrian Civil War (August 2015): {{xt|That [Russia Beyond] article simply has an unattributed statement of "reportedly used".}}
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 319#Newsmax (November 2020): {{xt|For starters, China Watch and Russia Beyond are probably not the model of accuracy.}}
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 363#De-deprecate CounterPunch (December 2021): {{xt|Russia Beyond is a pro-Kremlin publication.}}

:: It is somewhat surprising it has not been evaluated more often and more critically, as it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3A+rbth&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 is currently used in 1,535 enwiki articles]. I have mostly seen Russia Beyond used as a source in history articles, where it pushes a Russian nationalist narrative,, e.g. about how this or that battle was "[https://www.rbth.com/arts/history/2017/07/19/the-battle-of-kulikovo-when-the-russian-nation-was-born_806685 the day the Russian nation was born]". For genealogical issues, it usually engages in the favourite pastime of claiming that this or that person or family was definitely and unmistakably [https://www.rbth.com/history/330627-rurik-dynasty-founded-russia-ruled-before-romanovs descended from Rurik himself]. That may impress the average reader, but serious genealogists and historians know that this is usually nonsense, or at least a fatuous assertion, which pretty much every Russian aristocrat has made since the 16th century. They have so little editorial review that readers had to correct them that one of the people the author highlighted as a "Rurikid" wasn't actually one: {{xt|Our readers pointed out our mistake: Feodor Koshka wasn't a Rurikid at all.}} It's just a little example of how Russia Beyond is just as unreliable as its operator, Russia Today. It's not just a pro-Kremlin publication, it is a Kremlin-owned publication, that publishes narratives as a form of entertainment (rather than reliable information) in order to make Russia look good in the eyes of foreigners. The original title, Russia Beyond the Headlines, shows this original goal: because Russia often featured negatively in news headlines, they sought to paint a more positive picture of Russia that supposedly went "beyond the [negative] headlines". The resulting output should not be surprising: Russia Beyond#Reception states: {{xt|In 2007 and 2014, former Slate journalist Jack Shafer and The Guardian commentator Roy Greenslade respectively accused Russia Beyond of being propaganda.{{sup|[8][9][10][11]}}}}

{{cob}}

: Just like its state-owned parent Russia Today, we should probably deprecate Russia Beyond. NLeeuw (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

[https://genealogy.euweb.cz/why.html genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz] has been discussed many times before:

:* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 131#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley (2) (August 2012):

:: {{xt|I have also been through the articles that use "Marek, Miroslav. "A listing of the House of Orléans". Genealogy.EU. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)" as a cited source marking them in a similar way. The problem with that source is that Marek does not cite his sources.}} PBS (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 175#Judgepedia (August 2014):

:: {{xt|...1,132 pages link to genealogy.euweb.cz The first page returned is List of princes of Austria-Hungary 21 out of 28 citations (and another page or which I ran AWB), in this case I don't think Miroslav Marek cites any sources. You see the problem is lots of people like to create ancestry trees and articles about nobility the content of which is mainly about who married whom (dynastic pedigree was and probably is still important and if often helps to explain otherwise odd political behaviour, both at the local as well as the national level -- so it can't be dismissed as totally trivial), and it is easy to do if you use this sort of site. Deleting them is impractical at a Wikipedia political level (apart from anything else if one try it one will be accused of being anti-feminist as in prior centuries European female aristocracy are only notable by who they married and as baby machines, so deleting information in Wikipedia articles from these sites affects articles on females more than males)....}} PBS (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC) (I gotta say that I partially agree with PBS; we do need better representation of women and women's history; I'm a Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red member myself. On the other hand, "no information is better than false information"; that's a rule somewhere as well, right? NLeeuw (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC))

:* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 211#genealogy.euweb.cz and geneall.net (August 2016):

:: {{xt|I do not think http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ is a reliable source. Does anyone think that it is and if so how does it meet the requirements of WP:V?}} PBS (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

:* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#roglo.eu (December 2016):

:: {{xt|There are far too many of these genealogical websites being using in articles. It seems that biographies historical minor nobles of European Continental countries are particularly susceptible to having citations linked to these types of sites.}} [mentions http://genealogy.euweb.cz as one of them] PBS (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

:* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 266#thepeerage.com (May 2019):

:: {{xt|there is a far larger problem with the use of sites that do not cite their sources -- neither of you addressed my question about insource:/Rayment/ (used in 11,273 articles) -- there are others, most of them are used as citations to support little known (to English readers) continental European nobility eg insource:/roglo.eu/ (88); insource:/genealogy.euweb.cz/ (1,196); insource:/genealogics.org/ (460) and for UK and Irish biographies insource:/www.tudorplace.com.ar/ (381). I would suggest that if you want to help the project cleaning up citations to any of these sites that do not cite any sources would be time better spent than worrying about Lundy where he cites reliable sources.}} -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

:* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#More iffy sources from the fake royalty goldmine (5 June 2020):

:: {{xt|These seem very dodgy: (...) genealogy.euweb.cz - pretty confident this was rejected ages ago as user-generated, I will search in a minute...}} Guy 18:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

:: {{xt|genealogy.euweb.cz is self published unreliable (..)}} Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

:* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#Royalcruft again (19 June 2020):

:: (once again PBS pointing out that genealogy.euweb.cz is not reliable, and suggesting a way to "first tag them and then bag them".)

:I think it is evidently WP:SELFPUB and should be deprecated. NLeeuw (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A%22genealogy.euweb.cz%22 It is currently used in 1,206 (!) enwiki articles] – holy *peep*! Deprecating and replacing genealogy.eu should be a priority for us. NLeeuw (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::All this time for the past 12 years, PBS has been pointing out it is an unreliable source, and it seems that others have started to agree since June 2020. But it has still not been deprecated or discouraged. Instead, the number of enwiki articles which use genealogy.eu has only grown from 1,132 to 1,206 in 10 years. I think that, just like with Cawley's MedLands, we need to finally make a decision to remove Miroslav's genealogy.eu as an unreliable source that should not be used anymore, anywhere, anywhen. Because this problem will not go away if we continue to ignore it for another 12 years. NLeeuw (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Hey @ActivelyDisinterested, thanks for your advice below! Do you think this summary here above would suffice to make a case for deprecation at an RSN RfC? If so, would you support it? NLeeuw (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Maybe a discussion to deprecate these and similar sources. MedLands isn't deprecated and just keep getting added back, as does geni.com and the self-published peerage sites. Maybe all the genealogy sources that are already known to be unreliable, but keep getting used could be done in a single RFC. There's precedent for adding an unreliable source to the deprecation list because of persistent usage, see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide for instance. Mass RFC's can be unwelcome sometimes, but the other option (holding different RFCs for the same reason for each source) is worse. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Maybe finish working here, and then take a completed case of unreliable sources that keep getting reused to RSN for deprecation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::Thank you, I appreciate that advice very much! If you or anyone else has more input or could help me assess the sources I have been listing here, that would be wonderful. I haven't got much experience with RfCs, but I do want to address all these unreliable genealogical websites properly for once (if not for all), and you have been a great help so far, just like when we tackled MedLands last time. The precedent certainly helps as well. NLeeuw (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::@ActivelyDisinterested How about....

:::::::The following genealogy sources are currently considered Generally unreliable at WP:RSP (A to E), or in repeated inquiries at WP:RSN (F and G):

:::::::* A: Ancestry.com

:::::::* B: FamilySearch

:::::::* C: Find a Grave

:::::::* D: Findmypast

:::::::* E: Geni.com

:::::::* F: fmg.ac Foundation for Medieval Genealogy a.k.a. Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley

:::::::* G: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz

:::::::Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.

:::::::They should be:

:::::::* Option 1: listed as Generally unreliable (status quo, change nothing except adding F and G at WP:RSP as such)

:::::::* Option 2: Deprecated (list them as such at WP:RSP)

:::::::* Option 3: Blacklisted (not mutually exclusive with 2 or 4)

:::::::* Option 4: Purged from Wikipedia entirely (not mutually exclusive with 2 or 3)

:::::::(Voting format: [preferred option] + [source], e.g.

:::::::{{xt|Option 2: Deprecate ALL}}; or

:::::::{{xt|Option 2: Deprecate A, B, C, D, E; Option 1: list F, G as Generally unreliable}}.)

:::::::----

:::::::Would something like this work, or am I making it too complicated? Not even sure if we can make Purging a voting option, but it is what we did last time with MedLands. I would appreciate your advice. NLeeuw (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::PS: I'm restricting the proposal to these 7 sources for now, as they seem to be statistically the most problematic, and have also been most widely discussed. We can assess the rest later. NLeeuw (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::I would suggest removing Ancestry.com, and maybe all of the first four. I know Ancestry.com holds primary documents, which are considered semi-reliable even if most of the site isn't. I think (maybe) that the other three are in a similar situation. That could muddy the issue, and derail the RFC.
Drop {{tq|fmg.ac Foundation for Medieval Genealogy a.k.a.}} from 'f'. The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy is a possibly reliable source that hosts MedLands, they're not the same thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{outdent|:::::::}}

{{cot|RfC concept text}}

:The following genealogy sources are currently considered Generally unreliable at WP:RSP (A), or in repeated inquiries at WP:RSN (B and C):

• A: Geni.com
• B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
• C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav

:Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.

:They should be:

• Option 1: listed as Generally unreliable (change nothing to A; add B and C at WP:RSP as such)
• Option 2: Deprecated (list them as such at WP:RSP)
• Option 3: Blacklisted (not mutually exclusive with 2 or 4)
• Option 4: Purged from Wikipedia entirely (not mutually exclusive with 2 or 3)

:(Voting format: [preferred option] + [source], for example

:{{xt|Option 2: Deprecate ALL}}; or

:{{xt|Option 2: Deprecate A; Option 1: list B and C as Generally unreliable}}.)

{{cob}}

-----

:@ActivelyDisinterested Okay, would this work as an RfC? NLeeuw (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

::I would drop all mention of fmg, "MedLands by Charles Cawley" is clear enough. Otherwise I think it looks OK. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:PS: I may be misunderstanding what "purging" means. What we did in May 2023 was deleting a template that used MedLands as a standardised reference in 576 articles: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 25#Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley. I thought we had tasked a bot to remove the remaining 123 URLs, but I can't find back where I requested that. NLeeuw (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

::I run the search and remove them every few weeks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:::@ActivelyDisinterested Best wishes for 2025! Okay, I've removed mention of 'fmg'. I suppose Option 4 is not necessary for the RfC? At least WP:PURGE is about refreshing any page to update it to reflect more complex recent changes; it does not describe the process of removing URLs from Wikipedia:Deprecated sources (what I've been calling "purging"; at WP:CFD, it means removing a group of articles and subcategories from a category where they don't belong, but that's yet another process). Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources states: {{tq|Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation (...) Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately.}} Even if we vote to WP:BLACKLIST a source, that only means new URLs to it cannot be added, but does not mean old ones will automatically be removed. So I guess removing deprecated sources should be some sort of follow-up discussion and process if the RfC to deprecate these sources is successful. I shouldn't rush that step, so Option 4 should not be up for a vote at this stage. Agreed? NLeeuw (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Removing or replacing unreliable references is commonly overlooked. Nothing about any RFC magically removes anything, editors need to go through the articles and do the work. Blacklisting in particular shouldn't happen until links have been removed, see point 3 of 'Instructions for admins' in MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's good to know. Then I think I'm ready to launch the RfC. NLeeuw (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Filed: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu. Participation welcomed and encouraged. NLeeuw (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• ...

: NLeeuw (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Examples (I'm currently mostly working on Russia noble families, but it could be about anywhere, so this list is not representative):

• Kansallisbiografia seems RS
• Nordisk familjebok seems RS
• House of Nobility (Sweden) / Riddarhuset.se: seems RS
• House of Nobility (Finland) / ritarihuone.fi / riddarhuset.fi: seems RS
• Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon at riksarkivet.se seems RS
• Vle.lt Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija "Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia" seems RS
• ihst.ru S.I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Natural Science and Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences seems RS
• Tatar Encyclopaedia seems RS
• dic.academic.ru. :ru:Academic.ru states it is a {{xt|database of dictionaries, encyclopedias, bookstores and films}}; it suggests it is reliable, but does not always respect copyright. Seems fine, although preference should be given to citing the source which the academic.ru search result comes up with rather than the search result itself. Discussed once in March 2024, positively: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#zvukibukvy.ru. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=dic.academic.ru used in about 120 enwiki articles] (excluding unrelated "DIC" abbreviations)
• rulex.ru Russian Biographical Lexicon, seems generally reliable; it is merely a digitisation of two encyclopaedic dictionaries from 1907 and 1916 that we use already, although WP:AGEMATTERS. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=rulex.ru used in at least 48 enwiki articles], but I've also seen it in many not found in this search result. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A+rulex.ru used in about 270 enwiki articles].

{{cot|[http://www.rulex.ru/brbs.htm About Rulex]}}

{{tq|Настоящая биографическая или тематическая статья является электронной, адаптированной к современному русскому языку версией статьи, из 86-томного Энциклопедического Словаря Брокгауза и Ефрона (1890—1907 гг.) или Нового Энциклопедического Словаря (1910—1916 гг.). Тексты всех статей оставлены неизменными.}}

{{xt|This biographical or thematic article is an electronic version of an article from the 86-volume Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (1890-1907) or the New Encyclopedic Dictionary (1910-1916), adapted to the modern Russian language. The texts of all articles are left unchanged.}}

{{cob}}

• gerbovnik.ru General Armorial of the Noble Families of the Russian Empire seems RS, but from 1917, so WP:AGEMATTERS. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A+gerbovnik.ru used in 43 enwiki articles].

• adelsvapen.com: WP:USERGENERATED wiki which works very much like Wikipedia, risking WP:CITOGENESIS if they repeat each other's claims. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=adelsvapen.com+&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 used in 145 enwiki articles]

{{cot|[https://www.adelsvapen.com/genealogi/ Adelsvapens genealogi Wiki]}}

{{tq|I en Wiki får alla vara med och bidra med sina kunskaper och det är både lätt och roligt. Vår förhoppning är att många ska skriva information från sin egen släktforskning så att vi tillsammans kan komplettera traditionella källor. (...) Till varje sida finns det en diskussionssida där man kan skriva om man finner tveksamma uppgifter i en artikel och kanske inte vill ändra i direkt artikeln.}}

{{xt| In a Wiki, everyone gets to join in and contribute their knowledge, and it's both easy and fun. Our hope is that many people will write information from their own genealogy so that together we can supplement traditional sources. (...) For each page, there is a discussion page where you can write if you find questionable information in an article and perhaps do not want to change the article directly. There you can also write questions and thoughts about the article.}}}

{{cob}}

• vgd.ru All-Russian Genealogical Tree. WP:USERGENERATED [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=vgd.ru used in about 17 enwiki articles] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A+vgd.ru used in about 80 enwiki articles] (excluding articles where the abbreviation "VGD" stands for something else, usually Vologda Airport)

{{cot|[https://docs.vgd.ru/about About vgd.ru].}}

{{tq|Внимание! Базу составляют информация из открытой печати и сведения, сообщенные нам посетителями. База не может служить юридическим доказательством родственных связей, но является основой для дальнейших исследований, вспомогательным материалом. Именно поэтому здесь часто не указаны источники информации - в настоящем генеалогическом исследовании каждое слово подтверждается архивными справками, вам все равно придется обращаться в архивы или к профессиональным генеалогам. Если хотите добавить известную Вам информацию, пообщаться на форуме, отправляйтесь в соответствующую часть сайта, чтобы сообщить об обнаруженных ошибках или убрать сведения о себе, пишите на странице обратной связи или напишите ведущей сайта}}

{{xt|Attention! The database consists of information from the open press and information provided to us by visitors. The database cannot serve as legal evidence of family ties, but is the basis for further research, auxiliary material. This is why sources of information are often not indicated here - in a real genealogical study, every word is confirmed by archival certificates, you will still have to contact the archives or professional genealogists. If you want to add information you know, communicate on the forum, go to the appropriate part of the site to report errors or remove information about yourself, write on the feedback page or write to the site host}}

{{cob}}

• freeart.com/terms-of-use-and-sale/ previously abcgallery.com WP:USERGENERATED
• russianartdealer.com selfpub [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A+russianartdealer.com&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 used in 2 enwiki articles].
• funeral-spb.narod.ru/ selfpub. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=funeral-spb.narod.ru&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 used in 9 enwiki articles]
• sergekot.com/services-we-offer/ selfpub [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A+sergekot.com&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 used in 4 enwiki articles]
• https://www.m-a-k.net/ probably selfpub
• heraldry.at.ua. [https://www.mywot.com/scorecard/heraldry.at.ua?wot_product=addon untrusted website according to WOT]. Only used by Tereshchenko family. (not to be confused by heraldry.com.ua).
• imperialgerold.ru suspicious website according to WOT. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A+imperialgerold.ru&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 used in 3 enwiki articles].
• geneal.ru WP:USERGENERATED
• translate.googleusercontent.com WP:USERGENERATED
• rgfond.ru/about evidently WP:USERGENERATED. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A+rgfond.ru&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 used in 10 enwiki articles].
• hrono.ru / hrono.info / hronos.km.ru (:ru:Хронос (сайт)). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=Hrono.ru "Hrono.ru" currently yields 362 enwiki articles]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=hrono.info "Hrono.info" currently yields 82 enwiki articles]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=Hronos.km.ru "Hronos.km.ru" currently yields 34 enwiki articles]. Discussed once in Feb–March 2021 with an inconclusive RfC: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334#Chronos Encyclopeadia. Current status seems "no consensus / case-by-case basis" (WP:MREL). It seems that hrono.ru was originally hronos.km.ru, a former subdomain of km.ru, run by the :ru:Кирилл и Мефодий (компания) "Cyril and Methodius" company ("KM"), whose primary publication was a digitised version of the :ru:Большая энциклопедия Кирилла и Мефодия Great Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius. Archived URLs such as https://web.archive.org/web/20090319003748/http://www.hronos.km.ru/biograf/krestinski.html mirror those of currently-live hrono.ru: https://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_k/krestinski_nn.php . These days, however, "hronos.km.ru" no longer works, and redirects to km.ru, which is now a website about everything and anything to do with media, entertainment and "news" (its [https://www.km.ru/nauka/istoriya "history" section nowadays] features mostly pro-Kremlin opinion pieces about how awesome Russia is and how bad Ukraine is). We might task a bot to run a script updating these 34-ish URLs if we think it's worth the effort separating hrono.ru / hrono.info as it is now from km.ru after the hronos.km.ru was split off from it. NLeeuw (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• genealogia.ru ? [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roman_Dushkin/publication/317282025_Review_of_the_software_for_genealogical_research/links/593016070f7e9beee761c6f3/Review-of-the-software-for-genealogical-research.pdf This 2005 Researchgate.net review of genealogia.ru] calls it "the most extensive Internet resource on the Russian segment of the web, devoted to genealogy issues." The description suggests it is WP:UGC:

{{cot|2005 Researchgate.net review of genealogia.ru}}

{{xt|The basic view in the application under consideration is a tabular representation of one generation (family) with the possibility to move to older generations (parents) and younger generations (children). On the base view you can enter, change and delete any information about persons, events in their life, some properties. To build some diagrams (genealogical trees) you need to use special functions hidden in the main menu of the application. The diagrams themselves can be both viewed and printed. In general, the programme is a functional minimum for those who are just starting to conduct their genealogical research. In the future, when moving to more advanced genealogical applications, you can use the function of exporting the database to the unified genealogical GEDCOM format, which is understood by all major programmes on the genealogy market. Together with the programme itself a small help file is distributed, in which you can get initial information about the functionality of the programme, its features and conditions of use. The Genealogy programme is conditionally free. The free version has a limitation - you can store no more than 30 persons in the database. If you buy a licence, this limitation is removed. The cost of the licence is 599 p. The terms and procedure of payment are given on the developer's site.}}

{{cob}}

::In a [https://www.svrt.ru/lib/gv-51.pdf 23 March 2015 review], S.D. Kotelnikov wrote: {{tq|Сайт Генеалогия.ру (http://www.genealogia.ru) Хороший был в свое время проект Константина Погорелого, но зачах.}} {{xt|The site Genealogy.ru (http://www.genealogia.ru) Konstantin Pogorely's project was good in its time, but it has languished.}} He goes on to lament the commercialisation of genealogy websites, but not necessarily their reliability. NLeeuw (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• svenskadel.nu deadlink. https://www.svenskadel.se/ appears to be a WP:SELFPUB site dedicated to document all Swedish noble families, including those not registered at the Riddarhuset. {{xt|This register covers all genera or, more correctly, has the ambition to present all genera.}} It does not cite any sources at all. I don't know how often it is used ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=svenskadel.nu&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 search can't find anything]), but I saw it at least once for a Russian noble family article. NLeeuw (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC) Correction: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A+svenskadel.nu&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Used in 2 enwiki articles atm]. NLeeuw (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Feb-web.ru ? {{xt|The Fundamental Electronic Library “Russian Literature and Folklore” (FEB) is a network multifunctional information system that accumulates information of various types (text, sound, visual, etc.) in the field of Russian literature of the 11th-20th centuries and Russian folklore, as well as the history of Russian philology and folklore studies.}} It is a project of the Russian Academy of Sciences. [https://feb-web.ru/feb/feb/about1.htm The About page] seems to stipulate quite high standards of scientific and scholarly quality, accuracy, correct reproduction of original texts, completeness, and "Compliance with the modern scientific level". On the other hand, it has [https://feb-web.ru/feb/feb/atindex/atindex.htm hundreds of authors], and seems to be set up as a WP:USERGENERATED wiki. I don't know. It might be similar to Adelsvapen or Nupedia in the sense that it requires authors to be or behave like experts and use only highly reliable sources, but it is still usergenerated. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=Feb-web.ru Feb-web.ru is currently used in about 70 enwiki articles]. I think this might be case-by-case WP:MREL. NLeeuw (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• russianfamily.ru expired domain name, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A+russianfamily.ru&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 used in 5 enwiki articles].
• russiannobility.org Russian Nobility Association in America. WP:USERGENERATED? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A+russiannobility.org used in 27 enwiki articles]
• russiarevisited.com expired domain name. (only in Anrep (noble family)).
• oldkiev.info expired domain name. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A+oldkiev.info+peoples.ru&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22phrase%22%3A%22peoples.ru%22%7D%7D&ns0=1 used in at least 4 enwiki articles] but I've also seen it in a Russian noble family page.
• vybor.gorod.dn.ua deadlink (only in Tereshchenko family)
• liveuamap.com useful for military OSINT, but probably not very useful for genealogical research
• peoples.ru/about Although content is apparently submitted by project users (Проект Люди является общедоступным, и наполняемым пользователями проекта), it does have some editorial review / control. Might be reliable case-by-case.
• ...

NLeeuw (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:I'll comment on the ones from Sweden:

:*Nordisk familjebok is an old general dictionary. Generally OK, but can be outdated.

:*Riddarhuset is the Swedish house of nobility. I would consider it acceptable, especially on genealogy.

:*Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon generally an excellent source for Swedish biographies, but some of the oldest material might not have quite the same standard, and it is imcomplete.

:*adelsvapenwiki. A wiki where a lot of content comes from an import of the older :sv:Den introducerade svenska adelns ättartavlor by Gustaf Elgenstierna. That is a reliable source, available digitally on Projekt Runeberg: [https://runeberg.org/elgenst/].

:There is also the older Svenska adelns ättartaflor, by Gabriel Anrep, which should be avoided, as it contains family traditions of dubious value.

:Andejons (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

::@Andejons Thanks for this contribution! So I suppose that Adelsvapen wiki is based on Den introducerade svenska adelns ättartavlor, but users are allowed to add their own genealogy and other contents in a collaborate manner just like Wikipedia? I guess that would mean we still shouldn't use Adelsvapen wiki as a source, but go straight to the original text of Elgenstierna (if we can find it), as that can be relied on? The usergenerated expanded online version of it just cannot be trusted as much. It seems much like the WP:BRITANNICA situation; a digitised version of a printed original that has been updated and expanded, but editorial control over this new online version may not be as rigorous. NLeeuw (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

::One that still gets used in MedLands[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22fmg.ac%2FProjects%2FMedLands%2F%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1], discussedany times and isn't reliable. Commonly used for offspring and spouses, as MedLands has a very bad habit of linking anything with the same name. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:::@ActivelyDisinterested Hey, didn't you and I and some others deprecate MedLands 1.5 years ago at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy)? I do see that most access-dates in your search result are between {{xt|2024-09-30}} and {{xt|2024-10-22}}, so these are probably recent re-introductions of MedLands into enwiki, apparently all by the same new User:Vittoriobr who joined enwiki in late 2023, so a few months after we removed all those refs to MedLands in May 2023. For the record Vittoriobr: we appreciate your contributions, but fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy), alias Medieval Lands (MedLands) by Charles Cawley, is not a reliable source. We should not be using it anymore, but seek to replace it with a better source. As a relatively new user, you might not have known that, so we're explaining that to you now. :) NLeeuw (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::::I don't know how exactly adelsvapenwiki works, but my impression is that they usually don't change the text of Elgenstierna more than some editorial modernisations. I would suggest replacing with Elgenstierna when possible, but deprecating it should probably not be the first priority. I've certainly seen far worse.

::::Andejons (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::I agree. Currently I am thinking that Adelsvapen doesn't have to be WP:DEPRECATED (it can't be, this is the first time it is discussed and it is not that unreliable), but should be considered WP:UGC, as ActivelyDisinterested also said at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Adelsvapen.com. It is recommended to be replaced by a better source, but in non-BLP articles, that would have no urgency. Although I could also see a case-by-case WP:MREL classification, I think this would put it in the WP:GUNREL group.

:::::I think the question whether genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz should be deprecated is far more relevant right now. Not sure if I should make that a separate section here or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Adelsvapen.com? We should probably keep discussion centralised, but I don't know which place is best. @ActivelyDisinterested where can we best discuss genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz? NLeeuw (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::Both genealogy.eu and genealogy.euweb.cz have been discussed on RSN before, I don't think either were considered reliable. If you wanted them to be formally WP:DEPRECATED, as in having them added to the edit filter etc, then that will require a discussion on RSN and probably an RFC. If you just want to list them here as "Should never be used", then I don't see why you couldn't have the discussion here. Deprecation is a formal procedure, but in most cases there's no need to do it.

::::::Projects can maintain source lists (and I would encourage them to do so), but they can't do so against the general consensus of the community (basically the advice from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). So as long as your list takes into account prior discussions you don't need RSN, if you disagree with prior discussions or want some additional input RSN is always available. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks very much! I've made an elaborate summary above at #genealogy.eu, I'll tag you there. NLeeuw (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Oh, I indeed didn't know about that. I thought it was a reliable source, since it had its own references for the informations it gave. What's the best course of action now? Vittoriobr (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::It's okay, we are going to find a solution. Probably removing them all after establishing consensus. NLeeuw (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

:Regarding the Finnish sources:

:* The website https://www.ritarihuone.fi contains only a little information about the families, but I would expect it to be reliable, since they also publish research on the families. The [https://www.ritarihuone.fi/en/what_we_do/publications/ publications] are probably more useful than the website.

:* Kansallisbiografia is generally reliable. The articles are usually written by historians specializing on the period in question. At worst, the articles are directly based on Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon, adding nothing to them, but even this is quite rare. The site is behind the paywall, but the bios can be accessed for free through https://www.biografiasampo.fi

:Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks for the advice! NLeeuw (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:For those interested, I've got a running list of non-RS genealogy/royalty refs here that includes links to current use/my removal efforts on Wikipedia. Anything that doesn't have a strikethrough has citations that still need to be deleted/replaced. JoelleJay (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

::That seems quite helpful! I'll have a more in-depth look tomorrow. NLeeuw (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:::PS: What does the {{xt|insource: }} part do exactly when you make a search query within enwiki? I notice I can find 2 results for {{xt|insource: svenskadel.nu}}, but 0 results for just {{xt|svenskadel.nu}}, so it definitely does something useful. Edit: Usually {{xt|insource:}} seems to work a bit better than without, as it yields more results, but in a few cases it seems better not to use {{xt|insource:}}. I don't know why. NLeeuw (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

::::"insource" searches through the source text (what you see when editing a page if you don't use the Visual Editor), so it catches items in, e.g., templates or URLs that would normally be invisible on the rendered page. JoelleJay (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Thanks! By the way, how do I look for articles containing {{xt|ancestry.com}}? I'm getting a lot of false positives, such as Andy's Ancestry and Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, which do not contain this phrase, even though I'm using {{xt|insource: ancestry.com}} and {{xt|Exactly this text: ancestry.com}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A+ancestry.com+ancestry.com&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22phrase%22%3A%22ancestry.com%22%7D%7D&ns0=1 query]. Am I doing something wrong? NLeeuw (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::Never mind, I found that I could use External link search here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=10000&target=http%3A%2F%2Fancestry.com This shows it is currently used in 14,509 pages, but that includes talk pages, user pages etc. and not just the mainspace. In fact, the majority of results appears to be from the Talk, User talk, or User spaces. So it's not as bad as 20,000 mainspace articles as I initially thought. Plus, ActivelyDisinterested indicated that Ancestry.com may be semi-reliable when it is using primary sources. NLeeuw (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::The search is reading the period as greyspace, i.e. a space; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A+%22ancestry.com%22+ancestry.com&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22phrase%22%3A%22ancestry.com%22%7D%7D&ns0=1 enclosing] everything in quotes should fix that. JoelleJay (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Ah, thanks! NLeeuw (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Update: as expected, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov resulted in a delete of Khilkov. I had already prepared 6 follow-ups, which I have now filed:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Lobanov-Rostovsky
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obolensky
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romodanovsky family
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuvalov
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van der Bellen family
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vorontsov

These are all so similar that I used pretty much the same rationale for all (in some cases they were not wholly unsourced, but just very badly sourced):

{{xt|Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping [[:Category:[pagename] family]] for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value).

Sorting: Biographical; Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, Russia.}}

You are all welcome to participate in these AfDs if you're interested. I'll hasten to add that these articles are the worst of the worst; all other articles I have examined so far in :Category:Russian noble families have somewhat better sourcing and seem salvageable. Some of them (House of Golitsyn, Koskull family, Razumovsky, Shuysky, and Stroganov family) clearly pass WP:GNG, but do require a cleanup. But it may be that more articles will later end up at AfD if they do not meet some basic standards, and if sources they are currently based on turn out to be unreliable. I would say that House of Suvorov is the best article I have found so far, that could serve as an example to be followed by all others in this category. Establishing which kind of genealogical sources are reliable for royalty and nobility in general, and Russia and adjacent (former and current) states in particular, which we have been doing above, will hopefully greatly help in this process. Best wishes for 2025 everyone! NLeeuw (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eric XIV of Sweden#Requested move 18 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eric I, Duke of Mecklenburg#Requested move 3 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Modern images of early medieval rulers in infobox or article. Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Françoise-Athénaïs de Rochechouart, Marquise de Montespan#Requested move 27 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I am just requesting comment for this discussion. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015)#Requested move 16 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ecgberht, King of Wessex#Requested move 28 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Richard III of England#Requested move 30 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy#Requested move 23 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Rexophile (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Something about Knights of Rizal doesn't seem quite right to me. I came across this org when editing the page Billy Chan.

It seems like it was established in 1911 but whether it was an official state honor isn't entirely clear. They point to this Act from 1956: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1951/06/14/republic-act-no-646/

I'm not sure if the present day org is the same as the 1911 org, some articles link to "knights-of-rizal.org" which is a dead domain now. Current website is "knights-of-rizal.ph".

It seems to me like one of those modern day fake orders where becoming a member is not particularly difficult but I would like some input from others.

They claim on the page that Henry Kissinger was a member which I am skeptical of, only sources I could find were SPS.

Should members of this order have the post-nominals "KGOR" on their page and the title of "Sir"? D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Angevin kings of England has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mark Antony#Requested move 30 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Babenberg#Requested move 4 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Austria-Este#Requested move 4 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Augustus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Meinhard I, Count of Gorizia-Tyrol#Requested move 14 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)