Talk:List of satirical news websites

How to add website to table?

Copy the following, insert it in the table in the main article (sorted by name column), add information in 3 fields, remove comments on right side. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

|-
| [[]] <!-- Website Name (must link to wikipedia article) -->
| ?    <!-- Country Name -->
| ?    <!-- Year Founded (if unknown, leave question mark) -->

Website notability guidelines

All websites in this list article must use "double square brackets" to link to its article in Wikipedia. Look at the "Le Journal de Mourréal" entry in the table as a tip on how to link to an article in a non-English Wikipedia, by using the prefix is the 3rd column from the left in the table at List of Wikipedias#Detailed list.

Notability requirements are not a new thing on Wikipedia. It's typical for lists on Wikipedia to use notability as a "minimum bar" to limit what can be added to a list, which is typically a link to a Wikipedia article. If your website entry doesn't have a Wikipedia article, then please create an article for it before adding it to this list article. Keep the following in mind.

• Wikipedia:Spam
• Wikipedia:Notability
• Wikipedia:Notability (web)
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
• Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability
• Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Question: Is there a particular reason why a satirical site must have its own entry in order to qualify for this list? I can imagine arguments in both directions, but I wonder if there's a particular policy for lists that I'm unaware of. Thank you! Pegnawl (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you look at that, I found the answer to my own question! I don't know if anyone cares, but for what it's worth, this 'listing eligibility' concept has been described in WP:LISTN and WP:CSC; basically, there's no global policy, but "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." (emphasis mine). Pegnawl (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Pegnawl, I care. But the next logical question is which editors, at their discretion, chose to limit entries to those with Wikipedia articles. The contributions to this talk page show that a single editor, at his sole discretion, made that choice. Sbmeirow's edits on 21 October 2017 and 24 November 2017 imposed this restriction without consensus. That's disappointing. KalHolmann (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Just saw the latest scrub. In the month that's passed, have you thought of any good reason to keep this restriction? Any good reason to argue for its removal? On the one hand, it encourages the creation of Wiki entries, and shy of that, it narrows the scope of satirical sites listed to those of particular notability. On the other hand, we've both seen how difficult it can be to find clear, independent RS on satire sites! Pegnawl (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

HardDawn link

While the content is pure nonsense yet fulfilling feed to the foolish, it is not a parody or satire site. The recent assignment of conspiracy to the death of SCOTUS Judge Scalia is being linked to bizarre theory involving Leonard Nimoy, the Obama administration and the Illuminati. This is being advocated by various extreme right-wing entities such as Alex Jone of Infowars and HardDawn. Recommend Wiki editors monitor this page for the near term and remove the HardDawn reference. Inclusion of this site as parody is incorrect and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:363F:B15F:205A:580D:259F:FC9D (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been busy and just now removed it, not because of it's content, but instead because it doesn't have a Wikipedia article, which is a typical requirement for list type articles. It doesn't appear that you tried to fix the article, so why not? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

FortLiberty link

The first external link, besides being badly formatted, points to a blog site that claims several news sites as fake news. It even notes some do publish legitimate news. I recommend we remove it. Objections?--DeknMike (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)?

Zaytung link

It looks like a good starting list. I'm wondering about "notability" and I would say articles like Zaytung don't belong unless their notability can be established.

Also having a "founded" column looks good, and I'm wondering if it also needs to have a "closed" column, imagining some of these sites will have relatively short lifespans, but dead ones are still important to include if referenced elsewhere. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please wait for Zaytung article to be deleted. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

El Manchar link

What ARE criteria for inclusion/notability here? I added a Danish site that is certainly notable in Denmark, but of course not directly in English-speaking countries - and had it reverted because no en.wikipedia article exists. But I think a list like this, showing this type of websites worldwide, would be good, even when the individual non-English sites do not have their own en.wikipedia articles. -- Perhaps, in addition to Country, a Language column would make sense.--Nø (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with you User:Nø ! I also added a similar Algerian website in the past days but was deleted. I think that even if the website doesn't have an article on en:wiki, it will be useful to add it to the list, especially when it has an article on an other wiki. The Algerian satirical website El Manchar for instance has an article on French Wikipedia and there are several references, in French language, that talk about it. Its not because the website has not an article on English Wikipedia that it's not notable! Thanks, カビル (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Most list articles require the "item" to be notable, which typically means it needs a wiki article, such as Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) in this case. If your favorite website is great, then create an article for it first. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If an article exists on another official Wikipedia website, then I don't have issues with it being included in this list, but other editors might. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

World News Daily Report

There is presently a discussion at Talk:List of fake news websites as to whether World News Daily Report is a fake news website, a satirical news website, or both—as described on that site's newly created Wikipedia page. Since one outlet (National Report) already appears on both lists, perhaps editors here can help us resolve the matter, which defies (or at least stretches) the stated definitions presented in the lead paragraph of each list. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I took the liberty of adding World News Daily Report to the List of satirical news websites, following the example of National Report as being both fake news and satirical news. KalHolmann (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Irkutsk Ice Truckers

This is a new satirical news site - no Wikipedia page yet but its only about five months old and rapidly growing - My addition of it to the list last week was deleted IrkutskIceTruckers.com Does a site need to have a Wikipedia page before it can be included on this list? (talk)

No, it doesn't need to have a Wikipedia page. Hardeepasrani (talk)

For wikipedia lists in general, YES, items should have a wikipedia article to be included on a list. If they aren't notable enough to have an article, then they aren't notable enough to be included on a list. It is very common for editors to remove items that don't have a wikipedia article from wiki lists. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Gomerblog

https://gomerblog.com/] This is a satire medical news site. It has more likes than the Beaverton on Facebook so I think it may deserve a page and to be added to the list. People may be curious after seeing articles shared. If I get a chance I may create the wiki page. I also know of an analogous veterinary medicine satire site (https://cagelinervet.com/) but it is much less popular and probably doesn't warrant an article. Mthoma15 (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

panorama.pub

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0_(%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82)

It's the leading satirical site in Russia, lately becoming immensely known for repetetive reposts of their "news" by serious media. I strongly vote for their inclusion in the list.

WBR.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.99.35 (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC) 

Moving Site To Defunct List.

Can someone move Southend News Network to the defunct list please; the domain expired a few months ago. MrScottBull (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Request To Move Site To Active List.

Note: please disregard the request below - I've worked out how to accurately made the edit.

Thanks. I'm unsure how to make the edit but Southend News Network is once again an active site; could someone please make the edit? MrScottBull (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

In general, don't add entries to this table until after the wiki articles are "online". The article currently exists in my web browser. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The article in question has been online for a while and was previously edited to state it's online again, so the edit would be within those parameters.

It's sorted now anyhow, thanks. MrScottBull (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)