Tilcayo Cats:Reliable sources
| This page in a nutshell: Cite independent, published sources with real editorial control. Never cite a subject's own website or material it put out. First drafts use secondary sources only. The outlets we name are examples, not a whitelist: each source is judged on its own. |
On Wikipedia, "Reliable sources" is a guideline. On Tilcayo Cats it is a policy.
What makes a source reliable
A reliable source is:
- published: available to the public, in print or online, not a private email, conversation or document
- edited: it has editors, fact-checking and a record of publishing corrections
- independent: neither the subject nor anyone paid by, employed by or working for the subject wrote, commissioned, sponsored or placed it
- in its field: a newspaper is reliable for news, a peer-reviewed journal for research, a reputable publisher's book for its subject. Reliability depends on the claim being made.
Sources we never use
- The subject's own website, or that of its owner, parent company, employer, agent or funder. This includes "about us" pages, staff biographies and company blogs. A subject's own website may be cited only for basic, uncontroversial facts about itself, never for claims about others, and it never counts as one of TC:BLP's two independent sources.
- Material the subject put out: press releases, newswire copies of press releases, annual reports, marketing, advertorial and "sponsored" or "partner" content, and interviews in which the subject's own words are the only content.
- Social media, forums, wikis (including Wikipedia and Tilcayo Cats itself), comment sections, user-reviewed sites and self-published books or blogs.
- Directories and databases used as the only source: company registers, listings, profile pages, rankings and award announcements from the body giving the award.
- Sources listed at TC:UNRELIABLE (rated deprecated or generally unreliable by English Wikipedia editors), for anything their entry covers. Look for a better source instead.
- AI-written text, and sites that mostly publish it, including chatbot answers and search summaries.
- Content farms and sites that copy other sites or Wikipedia.
Primary sources
A primary source is close to the event: a court record, a company filing, a match result, an official statistic, an interview. First drafts use secondary sources only. After an article is accepted, a primary source may be added for a plain, uncontroversial fact (a date or a figure) that a secondary source already puts in context. Primary sources never count towards notability and are never used for claims about living people.
Outlets are leads, not a whitelist
The names below show the kind of source that usually meets this policy. Being on the list does not make a particular piece reliable: an opinion column, a sponsored feature or a rewritten press release in any of them fails.
- Usually reliable: national and established regional newspapers with editorial control (for example The Guardian, The Times, Financial Times, BBC News); books from university and established publishers; peer-reviewed journals; serious specialist and trade press.
- Use with care: local news sites, trade press that relies on press releases, tabloids (never for living people), and outlets with a clear political or commercial position.
- Encyclopædia Britannica (online): may be cited sparingly, for uncontroversial facts and overviews, but never as the only source for a contested claim. Two limits: it's not used in first drafts, which stay secondary-only, though it can be added later as a supporting source; and it never counts as one of the two sources TC:BLP requires.
Wikipedia's "perennial sources" list is used as a guide, not binding here. Sources that English Wikipedia editors rate as deprecated or generally unreliable are listed, with their reasons, at TC:UNRELIABLE; don't cite them for anything their entry covers. Ask at the reliable sources noticeboard if you are unsure about a source.