Talk:Perennial sources list

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Roughly 50/50, with supporters are split between multiple different titles. None of the arguments are particularly well backed up by policy. (non-admin closure) {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 08:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Perennial sources list → Wikipedia's perennial sources listWikipedia's perennial sources list – The list exists soley within Wikipedia. There is no other perennial sources list, and I don't think the list is so widely known to make the explicit linkage to Wikipedia unnecessary. Off and running (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. CNC (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Move to Wikipedia perennial sources list [new suggestion below] (or support). This seems like an improvement of the clarity of what topic this is about. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  Not clear why you think it would be a good idea to drop the possessive apostrophe s. Off and running (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the only psl article we have atm, so the shorter name is sufficient. The longer versions are redirects already. If we get more psl:s, we can think again.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Per WP:CONCISE, the title does not need more detail. Also agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång above. Therefore oppose. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 15:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  WP:CONCISE says "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area.".

  Without the additional word "Wikipedia" in the title, the article has no "general subject area". The additional word "Wikipedia" gives the article a "general subject area." Off and running (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  (sorry, I forgot to reply.) What I meant is that there's enough info in the current title to prepare the reader for an article about a "list" of "sources" which are "perennial"/often discussed. My reading of WP:CONCISE is slightly different to yours: i think if you take a person who is familiar with reading articles, they will understand what they are about to read from the title and/or the short description (which isn't in question here but it is probably the second thing the reader sees). Hope that clarifies. Cheers, --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 20:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think this proposed title is odd due to the possessive used after the first word. I thought in formal language apostrophes were discouraged per the Manual of Style. I see no reason change is urgent, unless something can be pointed out. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support - This makes the name more clear to what the page is about. Guz13 (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Wikipedia, WikiProject Journalism, and WikiProject Reliability have been notified of this discussion. CNC (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

What about Perenial sources on Wikipedia? Since this article is mostly about how the list works and what it means. guninvalid (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say they are perennially discussed. The sources themselves aren't perennial. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

At the end of the day, it's a list, so I don't think we should drop the word "list" from the title. Off and running (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It's about a list, and that's an important distinction. An encyclopedia is, effectively, a list of topics, but that doesn't mean that we should call it Encyclopedia Brittanica's list of things. RSPS also doesn't meet WP:NLIST, it meets WP:GNG. guninvalid (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the article is about a list. I (carelessley) ommitted that word. But how does that make any difference? Why does that mean that the word "list" should not be included in the article's name? Off and running (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Support: That is very descriptive. Considering that this article is describing the list rather than containing the actual list, I think a bit of differentiation in the titles from the two related pages is in order. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Move to Wikipedia Reliable sources/Perennial sources or similar per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NC-COLON. The subject of this article has a clear COMMONNAME. It's "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources". But we obviously can't name the article that because it's also where the subject sits and article names can't start with "Wikipedia:" due to technical restrictions around namespaces. But that alone is no reason (see transclusion count for {{Correct title}}) not to pursue COMMONNAME, which none above have for some reason despite it being the most important/oft-cited of the WP:CRITERIA. Nardog (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This page was moved from Reliable sources/Perennial sources following a discussion. I agree with Newslinger's reasoning in the discussion: Reliable sources/Perennial sources (and your proposed title) is not concise, it could be confusing when someone is looking for the projectspace page, sources have used "Perennial sources list", etc. Therefore I disagree with this proposed title which is far too similar. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 15:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I also don't think it's the common name, on WP or in independent English-language WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

A WP:COMMONNAME argument is about what WP: RELIABLESOURCES refer to the topic as. Please provide such sources. guninvalid (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's one: "list of so-called Perennial Sources". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding on: this source calls it a “Perennial Sources” list, though I will leave evaluating its reliability in this context to editors who know what they're doing. This also calls it a "Perennial Sources" list. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 19:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Move to Wikipedia perennially discussed sources list or Wikipedia perennially discussed sources or Wikipedia list of perennially discussed sources or Perennially discussed sources for Wikipedia or Perennially discussed sources on Wikipedia. As noted above, it's more accurate to say these sources are perennially discussed than to say they are perennial. The sources themselves aren't perennial. I'm not too worried about the inclusion of the word "list" since the format is not "List of x". It's a descriptive title, not an attempt at a "common name", since there is no common name prevalent in a sufficient number of independent reliable sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  As the original author of the article (when I named it “Reliable sources/Perennial sources" since the New Yorker story finally named the list by name, whereas other pieces always obliquely mentioned it), I have spent much time always explaining to non Wikipedians, that sources in the list are not “perennially sources”, they are “perennially discussed.” I always say, “It’s a terrible name.”

  I think once you have moved away from the literal name (which only Wikipedians would understand/recognize), you should make the page descriptive for the layperson. So I do think adding “Wikipedia” in the title is good. I also think “perennially discussed” is more helpful, or something like that.

  Once this is settled, I also think that the Wikipedians should decide if the original RSP list itself should be renamed so it’s doesn’t have the phrase “perennial sources” (but that is a discussion for another day)! Jenny8lee (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support as proposed, but also strong oppose any title not containing the word "Wikipedia", per self-reference Red Slash 18:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

A title containing the word "Wikipedia" is not a self reference. See, for example, History of Wikipedia and German Wikipedia. Also this comment contradicts itself: do you or do you not support "Wikipedia's perennial sources list" as a title? --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 18:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you missed the word not. I assume RS is saying that to name an article about something on Wikipedia a title that does not include "Wikipedia" would be to presume the reader knows they're on Wikipedia and thus too self-referential. Nardog (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand your point now (I did miss the "not"). I disagree though because isn't self-referential to avoid having "Wikipedia" in the title. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 14:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

So do I; as long as there are no other notable topics named "Perennial sources", it'll be WP:PRECISE enough. Nardog (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Correct, @Nardog Red Slash 06:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Gråbergs Gråa Sång - the current title is sufficient to identify the subject. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)