User:Thryduulf/Complete lists

The following is based on the consensus of discussions concerning redirects in general over the past several years and how lists work in the real world. It is proposed as a complete replacement for the essay at User:Elli/Complete list:

Redirects with titles indicating that they are a "complete list" of something (or an equivalent term) can be misleading in some situations but are harmless, and indeed sometimes useful, in others. Which depends on several factors including the nature of the thing listed, the content of the target article, the history of the redirect and external factors so each redirect needs assessing individually. The following is a guide to some common factors to consider, but in all cases exceptions are possible.

1. Does the redirect match the name of an external work, or is it a plausible search term for such?
   • If so, and that work is covered or mentioned on the English Wikipedia then the redirect is almost always going to be useful, although it might need to be retargetted. Deletion may be appropriate if relevant content in existing articles is minimal and greater coverage is felt desirable (see also WP:REDLINK), however if more content about the target is not desirable then retaining the redirect will normally be preferable to a red link.
2. Is there actually a list?
   • If Wikipedia does not have a list (of any completeness) of whatever is indicated by the title, then the redirect is going to be misleading more often than not.
3. Is it possible for a complete list to exist?
   • There are some things it is simply not possible to list comprehensively (for example a complete list of extinct species) and titles suggesting Wikipedia has such a list are usually going to be misleading. This issue does not arise when the thing being listed is a finite set (for example railway stations in a particular locale).
   • In some cases adding the implied word "notable" will change an infinite list into a finite one, whether it is reasonable to assume this what searchers are intending can only be assessed in context.
   • Lists where entries are still being added (for example, episodes of a TV programme that is still in production) are not infinite so different considerations apply to them.
4. Is the list (reasonably) complete?
   • If Wikipedia does have a complete list of whatever is indicated by the title, then in most cases the redirect is going to be useful and should not be deleted.
   • If the list is not currently complete, but it could be made so then the best thing to do will normally be to complete the list. If that is not possible, then the redirect might still be useful but it will depend on how far off completion the list is, the significance of the missing entries to the list, and how likely it is the list will be made complete.
   • If the list is still growing, but it is actively being maintained so that it is always reasonably up-to-date then in most cases it will be perfectly appropriate as the target of a "complete list" redirect. This is particularly the case with lists that grow slowly and/or where additions to the list are always newsworthy (for example lists of presidents of the United States or versions of Microsoft Windows).
5. Is the completeness disputed?
   • In many cases the redirect will still be appropriate, especially if there is content related to the dispute at the target. For example if it is disputed in reliable sources whether a given genus contains 20 or 30 species and this is explained at the target, it will often be appropriate for a "Complete list of species in [genus]" redirect to lead to a list that includes only 20 if the dispute is explained and there is a link to a separate list of the 10 disputed species.
   • If a list is regarded as complete by reliable sources but fringe theorists include additional entries then it is rarely going to be problematic if the latter entries are omitted from Wikipedia's list, especially if any aspect of the dispute is mentioned.
   • If the dispute is due to disagreement between Wikipedia editors over inclusion criteria or whether any given entry meets those criteria it will normally be best to wait until that dispute is resolved before assessing the redirect. An exception would be if none of the proposed criteria would result in the list being a complete list of whatever the redirect title indicates.

General considerations

• If the redirect is the result of a page move, then (in all cases) this makes keeping it more desirable - particularly if the move is recent and/or it was the location of the content for a significant length of time. This avoids unnecessarily breaking links (remember, Special:whatlinkshere only shows links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia, but Wikipedia pages can be linked to from anywhere on the internet, bookmarks and even offline sources (e.g. books, essays, even court judgements). See also Category:Redirects from moves.
• The edit history of the redirect may be required to be kept for attribution purposes, especially if content was merged into another article. In some cases where this is the case but the title is problematic it can be moved to another location, but this is distinctly the least preferred option.
• It is important that editors search for relevant content elsewhere on Wikipedia, including under different names, not just at the current target before nominating a redirect for discussion - particularly if deletion is proposed.
• Very long lists may be split over several pages. In these cases redirects that point to (or could be retargetted to point to) an index to these lists should be evaluated as if the list was on a single page.
• Overcompleteness is only rarely relevant. For example, it is unproblematic for Complete list of Foo in England to redirect to a list that includes every Foo in the United Kingdom (although retargetting to a list specific to England may be preferable if one exists).