Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- For instructions on markup formatting for a list, see Wikipedia:Lists.
- For discussion of lists that are contained within articles, see Wikipedia:Embedded list.
-
To see all the stand-alone lists currently used in Wikipedia, go to List of topic lists.
 |
This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia. The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. |
Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" are pages that contain primarily a list. The list usually consist of links to articles in a particular subject area, such as people or places or a timeline of events. The title of these entries always begin with the phrase list of or timeline of.
Contents |
[edit] Format of the lists
There are several formats currently used on Wikipedia. They include:
- alphabetized lists such as the List of economics topics, List of people by name: A
- categorized or hierarchical lists such as List of marketing topics or List of finance topics
- annotated lists such as the List of business theorists or Production, costs, and pricing, or the embedded lists of smart drugs in Nootropics.
- chronological lists such as Recent deaths and List of winners and shortlisted authors of the Booker Prize for Fiction
- glossaries are a type of annotated list, where the annotations are definitions of the list's entries. Example: Glossary of philosophical isms
The best format to use depends on which of the uses a list is being put to in any specific instance. If the list is being used by someone familiar with the subject, then an hierarchical list would be preferred. If used by someone not familiar with the topic, then an alphabetical list would be more useful. Probably the best compromise is an annotated hierarchical list. This is helpful to both groups. Then there is the question of whether the list is being used primarily for navigational purposes or 'pedia development purposes. There is also the question of whether the user is looking for a specific topic, a group of related topics, or just browsing.
Currently there is no single recommended format.
[edit] Introductory sentence
It is useful to start each list with a sentence describing the content and scope of the list. For complete lists:
- This is a complete list of Xs.
For partial/selected lists:
- This is a selected list of Xs. Xs listed here should be (selection criteria).
When the list includes a short introduction and a longer list, it may be advisible to include the "See also" with related lists and articles" after the introduction, but before the list.
[edit] Naming conventions
The name or title of the list should simply be List of _ _ (for example list of Xs). Do not use a title like: Xs, famous Xs, listing of important Xs, list of noted Xs, nor list of all Xs.
A list of lists of X could be at lists of X or list of X: e.g., lists of people, list of countries.
People are either list of Finns or list of French people, preferring List of _ people. USA folk are a special case; list of United States people redirects to lists of Americans, which is a disambiguation page containing, amongst other things, lists by US state. (Special treatment is neccessary because American is ambiguous.)
Poets listed by language are at, for example List of German language poets - see list of poets.
Fictional creatures at list of fictional dogs, etc., with real-life examples at list of historical dogs. However for dragons and other fictional species, you can stick to the simple list of dragons.
If the list is part of a longer article, the page will use a regular article name, e.g. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, see Lists (embedded lists) for more.
For multi-page lists (aka "Long Lists"), see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists).
[edit] Selection criteria
When deciding what to include on a list, ask yourself:
- If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
- Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?
- Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?
Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.
If a complete list is feasible in 32K, and could be useful, go for a complete list. Otherwise, you need to make sure section editing is enabled or you may want to build a selected list.
[edit] Chronological ordering
Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should always be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. Special cases which specifically require frequent daily additions, such as Recent deaths, may use reverse chronological order for temporary convenience, although these articles should revert to non-reverse order when the article has stabilized, such as Deaths in 2003.
[edit] Appropriate topics for lists
The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists.
Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See [[new list]] link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see List of people which is a broad list split into specific categorical lists.
Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list).
Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. They feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.
[edit] Lists of people
There is a general List of people by name which ideally would include people with Wikipedia articles on them.
Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, list of Christians doesn't include your neighbour, because she's not notable for her Christianity, she doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and she may never have. However, it might well include St. Peter. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies.
List of Elbonians would include persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Elbonia. The criteria for identifying as an Elbonian may not depend on the official citizenship laws of that country - the person could be related to the place by birth, domicile, parents, or by his personal admission, consider himself an Elbonian at heart.
The list of famous persons would include those who are known to a large number of people and is not based on the extent of their popularity. Neither is the list viewed from the context of the present. Their fame could be brief, what matters is that they were well-known during the peak of their popularity.
[edit] Lists of lists
Wikipedia has a few lists of lists. On lists of lists, nonexistent lists should not be included. That is, all the links in a "lists of lists" should be active (blue, not red). Are there other lists of lists in addition to this list of lists and the lists of lists that it lists?
Lists of lists should also be available as alphabetical categories. Put lists that have actual content in Category:Lists or one of its subcategories.
[edit] Maintaining the lists and category feature
As useful as these lists are, they have one serious problem: They tend to get out of date very quickly.
A category system has been implemented that should replace lists such as list of mathematical topics, but not necessarily more structured or more formatted lists, e.g. list of mathematicians. See Wikipedia:Categorization.
[edit] Lists and the "Related changes" link
A very useful Wikipedia feature is to use the "Related changes" link when on a list page. This will show you all the changes made to the links contained in the list. If the page has a link to itself, this feature will also show you the changes made to the list itself.
Some people put the following sentence at the end of list pages:
If you click on Related changes, you will see the list of all recent edits to this page as well as edits to all pages to which this page links.
This practice is controversial and actively discouraged by many. It is claimed that all instructional matters belong in a separate part of Wikipedia, that introducing them on other pages just adds unnecessary clutter, and that self-references should be avoided if possible. Others claim that because 99% of users do not study the multitude of instructional pages in detail, this notice makes the encyclopedia more user-friendly.
[edit] See also
- Wikipedia:Listcruft
- Wikia: Has Top 10 Lists available for wiki editing
