Wikipedia talk:Lists (stand-alone lists)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Lists This page is part of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Lists of people

This section says that people have to be be notable within that category to deserve a place on a list of people such as List of Atheists. Then it goes on to say that anyone associated with a nationality can be included in such a list, whether their notabililty is associated with that category or not. I found this self-contradictory, and I've tagged it as such. Is this an exception that only applies to nationality, or does it also go for other categories? Could someone explain this to me? LoNC 17:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an exception. Why is it an exception? Because nobody other than statesmen are notable just for being citizens. It's sort of an admission that nationality is perhaps a trivial topic for a list, but that would have to be decided by AfD. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] notable

As a suggestion, it may be best to include that removing the word "notable" from lists should be discussed on the talk page first to ensure consensus before the word is outright removed. In some cases, consensus amongst editors of the page have decided to include the word :notable" in the title. Yahel Guhan 05:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a severe problem in mandating that we don't use words like 'notable', 'famous', etc in these titles. I've been maintaining "List of notable software bugs" - which was recently renamed to "List of software bugs" per this guideline. But the resulting title is no longer descriptive of what's intended to be in that list.
We're not attempting to list all software bugs (but failing to mention the non-notable ones because WP:NOTE doesn't allow us to).
We are actually attempting to list only those bugs that caused human deaths or cost millions of dollars in damage or were really infamous for one reason or another.
Removing the word "notable" from the title leaves one feeling that this is an attempt to list every single software bug there has ever been - which is a list that will never be complete because of the constraints of Wikipedia's notability standards. This will certainly lead ill-informed editors to stick any old software bug into the list increasing the number of arguments we have and the amount of reverting we have to do. In this case "List of notable software bugs" is simply more descriptive of the intended content of the list - it is merely coincidence that WP:NOTE would not have allowed us to list non-notable bugs anyway. Similarly, "List of famous French persons" is more descriptive than "List of French persons" because we would not have attempted to make a list of all 200 million French people who have ever lived even if WP:NOTE allowed it.
I can't help but feel that this guideline is misguided. Sure it's a tautology to include "notable" or "famous" in the title because WP:NOTE would not have allowed it to be otherwise - but I bet that far less than 1% of our readers are familiar with WP:NOTE and may wonder why some specific thing is missing from this list who's title suggests that it's highly comprehensive. Adding "notable" or "famous" to the title results in a better description of the intended content of the list. SteveBaker (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I was the renamer of the software bugs list. The longstanding consensus is that the introduction section to the list is the best place to add any inclusion qualifiers like "notable" "famous", etc., as well as define exactly the editors' consensus on how inclusion/exclusion is determined for that particular list. WP users know they should read the intro., and assume "notable": even novice users learn this very quickly, in my experience. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Convention

Should a list such as Succession of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States remain at that name or be moved to something like List of the Succession of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States. The second seems more awkward, but the policy seems rather absolute. Mbisanz (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, guidelines are generally open to reasonable exception. Although, I think this title might be better in any case: Succession of Episcopal Church Bishops (U.S.). -- Ned Scott (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
If you were to rename it as a list, I would suggest List of Episcopalian Bishops (U.S.). There's no need to call it both a list and a "succession of", and there's really no reason to keep spelling out the church. See for example, List of English monarchs. Rather than List of Monarchs of England (redirect). Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Index lists - RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists, a complex issue which I've tried to summarize. It concerns unsourced pages in mainspace like List of timelines, List of basic mathematics topics, and List of film topics. Its scope is currently a few hundred pages, and potentially a few thousand pages. Feedback would be appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List contents

Based on a conversation at WP:N, several editors, myself included, believe that the list contents section of this guideline need to be improved to more accurately capture WP practice around lists. Specifically, the guideline needs to recognize that there are some lists (like List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, List of passengers on the Mayflower or List of passengers onboard RMS Titanic) that should not be strictly limited to notable entires only, while it is ok if there are others (like List of social networking websites, List of nu metal bands, List of bicycle manufacturing companies, or List of United States companies) that, to prevent listspam and becasue of WP:NOT#DIR, that are fairly strictly limited to entries where a Wikipedia article exists (which is close to the current text here). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these could be defined as "authoritative" lists. They come from a single definitive source (such as a law enforcement agency, or a ship manifest) that is for all practical purposes, fixed and irrefutable -- no one can reasonably deny that a person doesn't belong to those lists, nor add other people to the list at will. The content of the list is finite and complete. For other lists, whose entries must be evaluated individually, inclusion is determined by notability. Subjects can overlap but the disposition of a list is not affected; for example, the List of Pokemon is an authoritative list that includes all Pokemon, but a List of cartoon characters is a non-authoritative list that would only contain notable Pokemon (Pikachu has its own article; most others do not). Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Racist and or POV pushing lists

I was surprised to come across List of Russians and amazed at the total lack of neutrality in respect to the articles purpose and choice of total inclusion of any one ever part of or subjugated by any Russian anywhere at any time. It seems to me that this is what categories are for and not an indiscriminate collection of arbitrarily decided on names. Perhaps its time to rethink Lists of Elbonians altogether.Awotter (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List article naming

Should there be a preference for what list articles are called? For example the guideline mentions sortable lists which in the wild are usually called comparisons. But a comparison is just a type of list -- I don't know of any good examples where you would really want two distinct articles (list of... and comparison of...). So if all these types of lists boil down to being lists, should it be preferred that the articles all be named as "List of..."? Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Self Reference

The concept of Selection Criteria seems to violate WP:ASR. I recently encountered this issue on List of fictional companies. Perhaps some comments about the relationship between Selection Criteria and WP:ASR should be added to the article? Though I'm not quite sure how it should be addressed. -Verdatum (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Selection criteria rarely involves the word "Wikipedia" or links to articles outside the main namespace. And they probably never should. Precisely which statements do you consider to be in conflict and what was the issue that you encountered? Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...good point, nevermind. "Neutral self-references are acceptable". -Verdatum (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of long-standing formulation

Why is this formulation being deleted? based on definitions made by reputable sources. This is particularly important in the case of difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. This has been in the guideline Since September last year. Please discuss. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any discussion about its addition. I checked a bunch of lists and I couldn't find any with sourced criteria. Guidelines (and policies) are descriptive, not proscriptive. Can anyone show that this is the standard followed by lists on Wikipedia? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Your (jossi's) point is not without merit, but the language that you put back is too demanding and apperars to require sources for definitions that do not need them, such as List of counties of Califoria or List of winners of the Kentucky Derby. Some lists need an opening section that makes clear what the creator intended to include. Some need explicit criteria and may need a sourced definition that justifies the criteria presented. I suggest that you propse alternate language here and ask for comment.--Hjal (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In order to prevent misunderstandings in either direction by readers, I've adapted a line from WP:CITE, and added the text In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, referenced definitions from reliable sources on the subject should be used.[1] Is that satisfactory to all of you? --erachima talk 07:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How many lists have sourced definitions? I haven't seen any. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
@erachima: That is a good distinction and makes it much clearer. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I added a "see also" link:

  • {{see also|Wikipedia:Lists#Lead sections in stand-alone lists}}
See also: Wikipedia:Lists#Lead sections in stand-alone lists

Here is part of that section:

Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list. For example:

* If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. "This is a list of dog breeds." (The inclusion criteria is that an item must be the name of a dog breed in order to be added to the list).
* If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title, e.g. "This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism."
Non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should also be explained in its lead section.

It helps clarify how to deal with definitions and membership criteria. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good forumlation, and reflect actual usage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions needs some work

Since there are plenty of aptly-named lists that don't follow the "List of ___" format, I think it's necessary to reword the policy a little bit to reflect this. Lists such as discographies and filmographies are the obvious exceptions to the "List of" rule. But I could see other potential names, such as "Catalog of", "Time line of", and the above-mentioned "succession of". Basically, if you think of words that are specific types of lists (in so far as a "discography" is a list of musical releases, a "time line" is a chronological list of events, etc), shouldn't all of these be allowable in certain contexts? Shouldn't the defining characteristic be that the title uses a list-type-word most appropriate to the topic at hand, as long as a list-type-word is in fact used? Drewcifer (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see:
Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Formats of articles that are lists --Timeshifter (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)