Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Distribution of rows between the main page and the overflow page

Since we now have Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and a technically required overflow page at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/X, I am thinking about how this information might be better distributed. My proposal is to move all Green Light sources (about 150 rows, making up about 1/3 of the page) to a single subpage at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Green Light sources, and replacing them on the main page with a much more compact list of bare links to their new location on this new Green Light sources subpage. I would argue that it is somewhat less important to immediately flag green light sources than to flag cautions and prohibitions. BD2412 T 12:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

There is already an in progress plan for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Restructuring RSP, where each row of the table receives its own individual "subpage". This is primarily to avoid PEIS limits, but would also supersede your proposed reorganization. audiodude (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

If this can be easily archived as a stop gap measure until the page restructuring is completed, it seems a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll create a draft to show what this would look like. BD2412 T 15:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

See Draft:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Green Light sources. BD2412 T 01:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Unless this causes a problem for the ongoing page restructuring, I can't see why this wouldn't be a good stop gap solution. It should mean that we don't have to deal with WP:RSP8 potentially not being transcluded while the work is happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Who would I ask about whether this indeed causes a problem for the ongoing page restructuring? The other potentially controversial element here is that my intent is to remove these Green Light sources from the main RSP list. BD2412 T 12:39, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I can answer that question, and the answer is technically yes. The page restructuring relies on an automated "bot" that parses the current RSP pages and produces an abstract data structure, which then is used to produce Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/Index and all of its subpages. A change like this would necessitate updating that bot/script.

Further, in terms of merits, I would argue that such a change would be worse than the current situation. There is consensus among editors who work in RSP that the list doesn't take a stance on which sources are "better" than others. The list is intentionally not an endorsement, and is explicitly stated as non-exhaustive. It exists to summarize discussion and consensus, that is all. Creating a spotlight on green rows in the table actively works against those goals.

Further, as a critique of the proposed demo, the full transclusion of the entire introduction of the current RSP page header and introduction in the "green light" page further encourages confusion on this matter. It could easily create confusion and be mistaken as providing "the only sources that are allowed". IMO, the /X page is intentionally disorganized and marked as such.

Finally, as we have seen in this discussion, even if such a "green light" page were desirable, it is clear that it would be completely replaced/superceded in a matter of a few of months. I believe it is detrimental, in the context of the migration, that the "last" version of the page is radically different from the version that has existed for years. audiodude (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Then we are stuck with a seemingly random overflow page. I became interested in this distribution issue because, in fact, the Political Graveyard had no line here despite being a subject of dispute (and a general consensus of unreliability) going back many years, and unfortunately being used in thousands of articles. As an entity it should be on the "main" list rather than an overflow list, but there is no space left for that, and no immediate plan for how that could happen. BD2412 T 13:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know the precise policy as far as this, but IMO it would be acceptable to "rotate in" Political Graveyard into the main list, and bump something less immediately relevant on to X? audiodude (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Audiodude: I certainly feel like we would need to have a consensus-based process for determining what would be rotated out. BD2412 T 16:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

That's fair. Like I said, it was only my opinion, I'm not really familiar with the process. audiodude (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: Given the concerns expressed above, I have userfied this to User:BD2412/Perennial Green Light sources. I don't know that others will or will not find such a list helpful, but it is helpful to me. BD2412 T 03:43, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

"Green Light sources" sounds like an (unintentionally) silly name. The page should be called Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Generally reliable sources (or, better yet, just Wikipedia:List of generally reliable sources) and have WP:GRELS and WP:RSLIST as its shortcuts. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

We have always used a red/yellow/green color scheme, i.e., to traffic light colors, to indicate community consensus on sources. BD2412 T 16:14, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about the use of colors on the table, I'm critiquing the proposed title for the subpage. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

The proposed title for the subpage reflects the longstanding color scheme of the table, which is itself sensible given the near- universal recognition of "green light" and "red light" as signals. BD2412 T 18:01, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I really don't like "List of generally reliable sources", it sounds to much like a list of preapproved sources. This was meant to only be a stop gap before the page is fully restructured, rather than a longterm solution. As it seems it will cause issues with that restructuring it's probably not worth it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Questions on summary for some possibly contentious sources I added

I recently added RSPS entries for several sources which are intimately involved in a contentious topic -- notably, +972 Magazine and Wafa. As such, I wanted to get feedback on my additions, specifically:

• Should +972's summary include its political affiliation ("leftist")? I did so because it's in the first sentence of its Wikipedia article, but I'm concerned of "poisoning the well" so to speak.
• In the summary for +972 I wrote While founded as a group blog, it is now "a more conventional online magazine with editorial controls" per one editor.. Is this worth mentioning?
• Is "no consensus" an accurate summary of the reliability of Wafa? The most recent discussion had two people who said it was generally unreliable and worth deprecating respectively, but earlier discussion was more split. ARoseThorn (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Only the details from the discussions that support inclusion should be used, as the entries should be a summary of those discussions. So the only question is do those discussions warrant inclusion of these details? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:28, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested All of the details I added are included in the discussion, except for the "leftist" comment, so I'll remove that; I've done my best to fully represent the beliefs of the discussion participants, but I'd like your opinion if my descriptions are accurate and comprehensive. ARoseThorn (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Then you're good, if anyone disagrees they can always make changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Sky News entry

The Australian version of Sky News rebranded to News24. Any way we can update it? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Best Gore

Do we really need this "source" on the list? Szxq (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

It's been deprecated by a RFC, so it meets the inclusion criteria. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:02, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

o Szxq (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2026 (UTC)