Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should {{Historical}} be added to Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source and to related Wikipedia as a press source YEAR pages listed in {{PressSourceYYYY}}? Information that used to be listed on these pages is now listed in {{Press}} on article talk pages, and no listings have been added for 2019 at Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2019, so this series of pages appears dead/unmaintained. Note that in contrast, Wikipedia:Press coverage and related Press coverage YEAR pages listed in {{PressCoverageYYYY}}, for press coverage of Wikipedia as a project (rather than of individual Wikipedia articles), is actively maintained. Biogeographist (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that not much is going on at the Wikipedia as a press source pages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know they existed, but yeah activity has clearly faded off. Wikipedia has become mainstream so tracking these items seems kinda archaic and pointless. Unless some people show up arguing for these pages as active or useful, it's probably a good idea to mark them all historical. Alsee (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that marking them as historical would be appropriate with no prejudice against resurrection in the future. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(invited by the bot) I agree. I didn't even know that this existed, it appears to be dead and probably not useful.North8000 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]