User:Deiz/Bestof
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians but may not have wide support. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes. |
This is an essay (which may become a proposed guideline) pertaining to the inclusion of "Best of..." or "<Top 10 / 25 / 100> <funniest / scariest / saddest> <movies / songs / moments>" lists published by notable outlets or institutes.
[edit] As lists
Such information can be presented as a list with little problem, assuming the outlet which published or issued the list is considered notable and the list is of an annual, all-time or otherwise important nature. Lists such as "Top 5 tunes in the Rolling Stone office this week" would fall a long way short of such requirements. Lists should conform to the relevant sections of the official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, with the greatest concern given to the criteria that lists should not be "mere collections of internal (or) external links". A "best of..." list should contain substantive context and information for each entry in that list. Examples include and are certainly not limited to:
- Movies: Year, director, genre, country of origin, Oscar awards / nominations, other major awards
- Songs: Artist, year, label, album, awards
- Events: Year or full date, location, nature of event
- People: Nationality, occupation, year of birth
In all cases an item should also be accompanied by the reason for its inclusion if this is not explicitly clear from the title of the list.
[edit] As categories
Over-categorisation is to be avoided, hence categories should only be created from such lists if the list can be shown to be a definitive list of its type, from a major institute or outlet with considerable influence. For example, Category:Best Picture Oscar contains the winners of the most prestigious award in the film industry. Creating a category from "FHM's sexiest women 2000" or "Cheese Monthly's best cheeses 2004" is dependent on a subjective grouping issued by one outlet and compiled by it's editorial staff or audience, with little or no gravitas or historical significance. A list conforming to the criteria in the previous section would be the most appropriate way to present such information.
[edit] As templates
Great care must be excercised when turning such lists into templates. A popular film or song could appear in literally hundreds of subjective lists, possibly containing hundreds of entries each. The burden of proof that such a list is both definitive and essential to the understanding of an article's significance should be even higher when considering creation of such templates. Templates of Best Picture Oscar winners are broken down into 20 year blocks, and this 20-entry breakdown should be considered the maximum size for such templates unless the list extends to less than 30 entries.
