Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Voting

{name} {surname} : STÓD/ÉÍRE, Stan, Nevilley, Tannin Zoe (why change what has always worked for the Wikipedia before?), Tarquin, Deb (Wikipedia is not a phone book), Camembert, Ams80 (it wouldn't be possible to automate and would thus be a mess), Hephaestos, mkrohn, John Owens (phone books don't have search functions), Ryan_Cable, Nanobug, Angela Total votes so far: 15

{surname}, {name} : Susan Mason (why change what has always worked for the phonebook before?), SCCarlson (easier to look people up), Robert Lee (same reason as SCC; and the fact that it would be hard to convert existing lists is no excuse; also: there is a reason for the phone book format which DOES apply to all name lists), Menchi Total votes so far: 4'

No standard Taku (Some people have middle name, some people don't have surname at all, thus the convention is not only meaningless but also misleading that people might assume what is a surname and what is a give name), GrahamN (Those editing the list should be free to use any format they choose) Total votes so far: 2'

From Talk:List of polydactyl people:

Susan, on Wiki, lists are placed in the format {first name} {surname} not {surname}, {firstname}, the format you have tried to rearrange this page twice to match. Below is a list of just some of the lists on Wiki, taken at random. Not a single one is in the form {surname}, {firstname}.


  • List of agnostics
  • List of Astronomers
  • List of athiests
  • List of chemists
  • list of economists
  • List of Hungarians
  • List of inventors
  • List of Jews
  • List of mathematicians
  • LIst of messiah claimants
  • List of pagans
  • List of painters
  • LIst of physicists
  • List of Satanists
  • List of Scientologists
  • LIst of songwriters

So please leave this page the same way as every other list on wiki. JtdIrL 05:49 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

What about Biographical Listing/A and its siblings? --Paul A 09:10 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Biographical listings because they are dealing with hundreds of entries in index form have to be arranged that way. The other lists aren't because they aren't constructed as indices, but much smaller lists of people. They are usually alphabeticalised by surname but each name is written as {first name} {surname}. But it is typical of Susan/Lir that she's only back on wiki a short time and already the wiki list is jammed with people complaining about her. It seems like she'll never learn. She didn't propose a standard at the start. Instead waited until hundreds of people produced list after list and then decided to do her own thing, doing the reverse of everyone else. (And then wonders why, in her new incarnation she is becoming as unpopular as in her previous ones!)

She didn't raise the issue of 'should we do it this way or that way' on the w-list or talk pages, just unilaterally started doing it her way, leaving a mess of clashing styles. Either she should get everyone's agreement to change the structure of the lists, or follow what has become the consensus approach. When I noticed there was a problem with the rival nomenclatures and structures we were using to describe royals, I contacted people and asked their opinions, put a draft idea on a relevant naming page, pulled together all the suggestions and circulated them on the wiki list. Then, when got a consensus, put it in the naming page and as a result, everyone began doing the same thing, and working back on old pages to make them conform to one style. What I didn't do is unilaterally change some pages to clash with other people's system and then attack people for not doing it my way. Unfortunately that has been Sue's way, just as it was Lir's way, which is why complaints about Lir and Vera Cruz jammed up page after page and why both were banned. Because their approach drove people mad. Susan is doing the exact same again (as her comment below shows), with the exact same results, the exact same annoyance and the exact same complaints appearing on the w-list. JtdIrL 09:37 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Not every list is that way, Ive modified at least a dozen of them. Susan Mason

Actually, I think the reason the Biographical Listing is the way it is is precisely because the other lists are the other way around. You have to have a way, somewhere, of getting to people by surname. Not that it really bothers me. Deb 18:14 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
IMO, it's a good thing to have Biographical Listing the other way around. If there is a tool to create any of them automatically, all the better. Docu 08:33 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

So, uh, what is the value in listing things this way? Susan Mason

That's how the individual articles are headed. Deb 17:14 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

But that is of no concern, let me demonstrate: This will link to the Talk page for the List of polydactyl people. There is no inherent connection between the text displayed and the link. Susan Mason

end of moved text

From Wikipedia:Village pump:

Why are certain people (JtDirl-Zoe) insisting that it is proper to list names alphabetically by first name. How is this acceptable? Why should I look for Hitler after Adolf? Why should I look for Chamberlain after Neville? Why should I look for Bogart after Humphery? Hmmm, let me now look for Rommel after Erwin. After that I shall look for Clinton after Bill. Perhaps later I shall look for Eisenhower after Dwight. After tea I plan to look for Gary Gygax after Gary. Around dinnertime Ill be looking for Dickens after Charles. Before bed Ill hunt up Copperfield after David. Overnight Ill have my computer try and find Gates after Bill. When I wake up maybe it will have found Truman after Harry. For breakfast Ill look up Peet after Bill. For brunch Ill be examing a list in search of Wayne after John. I think by lunch I will have found Ford after Harrsion (and Henry!). Susan Mason

With the greatest respect that is a complete and gross misrepresentation of our position. Why do you constantly misrepresent people's positions? What we say is that it should be listed by relevance. If it is relevant to list by genre, by post, by era, etc that is how it should be done. NEVER by first name. Within lists, it should ALWAYS be listed by alphabetical order by surname. But not in the form {surname}, {name} but by {name} {surname}. Is that too difficult. For example,
  • John Martin
  • Susan Mason

not

  • Martin, John
  • Mason, Susan

Is that too difficult to understand? We are not putting together a telephone book or an index, but a list. There is a difference. STÓD/ÉÍRE 20:54 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)


I agree this is a bad idea, and goes against all conventions. Apart from anything else, almost anyone looking up "Newton" would look under N, not I for Isaac. I don't even know the first names of Aristotle, Voltaire or Goethe! -- Chris Q 07:31 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Chris, Susan is grossly misrepresenting the facts. See above.

There is one convention it doesnt go against, thats the "wikiway" where if I suggest it, its wrong. Did you know that Im just like DW, Lir, ,172, Vera, 142, and basically all the other bad users because all I do is harass poor innocent users and try to vandalize and subterfuge their articles by changing them without getting permission from the high cabal. Last week I was crusading for my NPOV POV, now Im crusading for my own bias towards last-name alphabetization, where will it end? If RK is right, by next week Ill probably be insisting that it's ok for Chinese people to use their Chinese names on the ENGLISH wikipedia. I'd like to complain more but hold on cuz Im trying to find Vonnegut, I think its listed after Kurt somewhere... Susan Mason

Susan, I agree this this first names nusiness is unconventional, but it seems too firmly entrenched to try to change now. One advantage that it does have is that it makes links easier to set up.
For instance, in a sentence like "Charles Babbage, Clark Gable and Winston Churchill were seen at the Exchange Hotel in Kalgoorlie together last night", it's easier to create links by placing ]] and [['s around the names of Charles Babbage, Clark Gable and Winston Churchill. Under the surname first system, you'll need to add a |Babbage, Charles, |Gable, Clark and |Churchill, Winston as well for the links to work. Arno
Arno, I don't think Susan Mason's talking about article titles. I think she's saying that in, for instance, List of English people, the people should be listed in alphabetical order by surname, not by first name. I agree with this wholeheartedly, but with a certain amount of puzzlement: I know of no list in the Wikipedia that is listed by first name. Perhaps Susan Mason could supply some examples? --Paul A
Well, perhaps those particular pages could be redone. Just add |'s at the end of the links concerned - eg a link that reads Gomez Addams becomes Gomez Addams|Addams, Gomez. Arno 08:21 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
Right thats the unacceptable course of action upon which I embarked. Susan Mason
When somebody is scanning down a list looking for names, their eye needs to focus on a vertical column. That vertical column needs to be alphabetized which is why the last name has to be listed first. Look at a phone book, there is a reason they did it that way. Susan Mason

Couple points here:

  1. 1:We dont need to change article titles to be last name first, we are not a paper encyclopedia.
  2. 2:We dont need to change all lists all at once. The way Ive been changing them is that everytime I add a name to a list, I change the 5 times on either side. Overtime they will all be changed.
  3. 3:We don't need to use last name first when writing text within the article itself.

Also:

  • Bush, King George W.

or

  • Bush II, King George W.

or

  • Bush Jr; King George W.

Susan Mason

Lists should be in second-name order but titles should not. If this means having complex links in lists then I think that is the best option. An alternative would be to (slowly) add redirects for all names, making both titles accessible.

Susan, could you direct me to the discussion you have been having on this? Thanks.
I understood that the arrangement on, for example, List of Swiss people is the usual. Names are listed as "first name, second name" but in alphabetical order of last name. This doesn't lead to a problem in finding a name (search alphabetically by last name) but makes the list easier to read and easier to link. -- sannse 08:10 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

The list is harder to read if you are actually trying to find a specific name, because u don't have a nice neat vertical column of alphabetized letters which u can scan. If you go that list and search for Keller, chances are you are scanning the last names; which is why the last name should be listed first. Susan Mason

OK, I can see your point on that. With "first name, last name" it's easier to read the individual names but less easy to read the list as a whole. I think you missed my first question, could you give me a link to wherever you have been discussing this? -- sannse 08:27 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump

Perhaps I can clarify my question. Your first comment on this subject on this page was "Why are certain people (JtDirl-Zoe) insisting that it is proper to list names alphabetically by first name." I would be grateful for a link to the page where JtDirl-Zoe and you had the conversation that led to you posting this comment on this page. Thanks -- sannse 08:35 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the links Susan. I think you may have misunderstood Zoe and JtdIrL's position. I think it is clear that all agree names should be listed in alphabetical order of last name. The only question is whether, within that arrangement, they should be written as (last-name, first-name) or (first-name last-name). I can see benefits to both arrangements. -- sannse 15:19 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

I can't. Susan Mason

From Wikipedia:Village pump(cont.):

Furthermore, I noted that the lists are formed somewhat oddly, not in a format akin to a phonebook. I believe the phonebook company is quite adept at understanding how to make a list of names, however, I have been unable to communicate effectively with any other user in regards to this issue. My suggestions have been shot down merely because, "well, all the other lists are that way, so why change them?" Susan Mason

Your argument is flawed. This isnt a phonebook. You assume that they know better than what we do. You apply phonebook standards to an encyclopedia... this isnt a phonebook. There is a healthy discussion about lists and how to deal with them on the mailing lists... You seem to have a brain problem... the curcuit which allows most people to stop and consider and cooperate is short with you... Lenghten it.. youll feel better. -&#35918&#30505sv
hmmmm-what good is the list if you can't easily search through it for a name? Susan Mason
Hit control (command) f and enter a word your lookin for. Read the EN mail list Brion agrees with your idea of last names first.. others dont... the important thing is, (insert kind expletive here) that you discuss it with other people who have a clue about where it sits. It may go your way, and youll be a hero... or it may not. Such is democracy, this is not a Susanocracy.-&#35918&#30505sv

Right but see Im waiting to hear an actual argument for the current system, its kinda hard to discuss things when the opposition doesn't discuss. Susan Mason

This isn't really the place to discuss this, but if by "current system" you mean listing things in order "Given name Family name" rather than "Family name, Given name", then one good argument for that is that it's much easier to type and edit ([[Ludwig van Beethoven|Beethoven, Ludwig van]] is a real pain to type). Is there a discussion happening about this somewhere? If so, where? --Camembert
Some of the discussion was on this page, I've just moved it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists). Within that discussion Susan gave links to Talk:List of polydactyl people, User Talk:Jtdirl and User Talk:Zoe. the issue has also been mentioned on the mailing list, see this post and this one -- sannse 11:22 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)
Further note: the polydactyl-page discussion has now also been moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists), and I can't find anything pertinent on either of the user talk pages.
--Paul A 13:22 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

end of moved text

A good argument for giving people's names in lists the same way as they are given in article titles is that they're much easier to type that way: [[Ludwig van Beethoven]] is no trouble to type, while [[Ludwig van Beethoven|Beethoven, Ludwig van]] is, in my opinion at least, a real pain. Personally, I don't think alignment of surname initials is such a great advantage - I find it quite easy to find my place in lists as they are formatted now. It should be rememebered, also, that not all lists are ordered alphabetically - some are chronological or something else (this isn't an argument against ordering things "Family name, Given name" in alphabetical lists, just a warning that there are some lists this discussion doesn't apply to in any case). --Camembert

I totally agree. Indexing is a science, and there are all kinds of arguments for and against different ways of doing it, depending on the context. Wikipedia is not a printed environment, and there is no reason to copy rules that were invented specifically for printed books. Deb 17:40 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)
In general, chronological or genre listings carry more information, and are more interesting to the reader. Alphabetical only serves to make it easier to find a particular item -- and on WIkipedia one can use the browser's built-in search function (CTRL+F etc). Given that, there's not much point in inverting the order of names, other than it being a pain in the *ss ;-) -- Tarquin 17:48 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Can I just clarify (I have already but just in case someone has not read the correction, no-one is suggesting lists by first name. Repeat - NO-ONE. This is a figment of Susan's imagination. The suggestion is always to order by surname, just not as in an index, {surname}, {name} but as {name}, {surname} because

  1. we are not creating an index but a list, a fundamental difference. An index does not have the number of sub-categories etc that a list does. All its has is categories by letter, not by job, by location, by era, etc
  2. Our article titles are in the form {name} {surname}
  3. Wiki lists are already in the form {name} {surname}.
  4. Many lists are broken down by genre, job, location, etc. as well as ordered by surname. Ordering things as {surname}, {name} makes it less visually attractive, unless we also order the category names, as in Politicians, List of, US Citizens, list of.
  5. Many readers of wiki do not have english as their first language. It is illogical to create a form that is more difficult for people who may not be 100% fluent in english to instantly understand, when what we are creating is a list, not an index which by definition does need to be alphabeticalised by {surname}, {name}.
  6. As lists are compiled, they often go out of alphabetical order, so it is necessary to re-order them. Given that people initially put the names in by {name} {surname}, changing them to {surname}, {name} involves not just alphabeticalising them, which can be done with a bit of cop on in the {name} {surname} format, by redoing the entire list. Some lists are very long. What is the point of doubling the amount of work involved in reorganising the list? And who is going to take on the task of re-ordering vast numbers of lists?
  7. Given that some names are double-barrelled (eg., Mountbatten-Windsor), and others are made up of two words, (eg., de Valera) who will take the responsibility for ensuring that people compiling lists do not inadvertently made the word judgment on where the surname begins, for example, by placing Eamon de Valera under V as Valera, not where it should be, de Valera. What of names where there is confusion, eg. John Rhodes Boyson. Is he under R or B? Even if placed on the wrong spot on the list, the name remains clear right now. But if it has to be entered as {surname}, {name}, we could have Rhodes Boyson, John or Rhodes Boyson, John. What should a person do if they don't know whether Rhodes is a second name or the first part of a double-barrelled surname?
  8. If we choose {surname}, {first name}, will we then have to add an additional definition to the page on the nomenclature of royalty to clarify how we enter royals as. For example, would Prince Harry of Wales go in as
  • Prince Harry of Wales,
  • Harry of Wales, Prince
  • Wales, Prince Harry of
This currently is not a problem using Prince Harry of Wales. No matter which part is used on an alphabeticalised list, his name will be obvious.
It seems to me that moving to {surname}, {name} would make lists ludicrously complicated to compile, liable to serious mistakes, cumbersome to read and difficult for people who have not 100% fluency in English difficult to follow. So why opt for a more cumbersome, alkward and annoying system when those problems and complexities can be avoided by using {name} {surname}/{name} {title}. Even if on occasion a difficult name is in the wrong location in the alphabet, it still is better than using a system which may still get it placed under the wrong letter but also make it more difficult to read. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:56 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

May I suggest to make the representation of people's full multi-word names in alphabetically ordered lists an OPTION, which every Wikipedia:reader may CUSTOMIZE to their own satisfaction ? (This may even include the option to alphabetically sort a list of people by their first (given) names.)

As the default representation in a list I'd prefer ... the same form as the corresponding article title, i.e. usually surname last; but I rather abstain from voting for any one representation as exclusive and permanent.

Best regards, Frank W ~@) R 21:46 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

In theory that would be great, but it would require some major changes, both to mark up articles to identify first and last names (leave Gregory of Tours alone), and then to references that you want to have this rule applied to, as in "Pompadour, Madame de was a mistress of XV, Louis". :-) Stan 23:18 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Susan, you are Lir and Vera Cruz, and it has always been your desire to make Wikipedia over to your own way of doing things. Why should we change the way we have all names all over the encyclopedia just to suit your whim? -- Zoe

If you look through a list for a particular name, say Beethoven or Marx, I am sure you will look at the last names. It is far easier to say those last names if they are all in a nice neat line. Susan Mason

Susan/Lir/Vera -- use your BROWSER'S SEARCH FUNCTION for pete's sake! -- Tarquin 14:34 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Not every user has the usage of such a high-tech function, my dear Tarquin-Stevertigo-Jtdirl-Zoe. Susan Mason

I would guess you have to go quite a long way down the browser ladder before you get to one without this feature. It's not "high-tech" at all, it's decidedly lo-tech. In any case, if you were looking for a particular person, why would you be looking through a list at all? Surely you'd just use Wikipedia's search. Lists, if they're for anything, are for browsing, I would have thought, and when browsing it's much nicer to have a list with all the names arranged "Given name Family name" rather than the other way round. --Camembert
I've been pretty much on the fence with this, but that's a very good point Camembert. With that in mind, I prefer the current ordering (ie first-name last-name) -- sannse 20:20 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

It's quite simple if its ordered by firstname-lastname, then when scrolling down i will look at the right collum. I suppose it should say at the top order this way, as people will instictivly look for lastname, firstname. -fonzy

fonzy you cant easily look at the right column because its not in a straight line. Susan Mason

I think there is at least one case where names should be formatted precisely as they appear in the article title, regardless of what we decide for name lists in general: in the list of related topics at the bottom of an article. Anyone disagree? --Paul A 01:18 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

East-West name list

European

The poll above seems to be for Western and Westernized names. I think it should be {name} {surname} to be natural.

East Asian

By the same reason, CJKV names should be {surname} {name}. Note the absence of a comma after surname. It is the natural way as well. Unless the person has Westernized his or her name, like James Soong.

Mixed

In the English-language mixed namelists I've seen containing native CJKVians' & Euroepans' names, they are {surname}(,) {name}. The formal method. I don't see how it's gonna work other wise, because:

  • European
    • William Shakespeare : works fine
    • Shakespeare, William : works fine too; sometimes used in military or by teachers taking attendance
  • CJKVian (note: native, not Westernized)
    • Sun Yat-sen : works fine
    • Yat-sen, Sun : does not at all; just looks confusing. Unused, so nobody'd recognize it.

So I vote for the formal style: {surname}, {name} for European, and {surname} {name} fo CJKVian.

--Menchi 11:56 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This issue was discussed in ja. Wikipedia, and some research was done.

Some of the peoples who don't have family names include

  • some Brazilians, south Indians (Just one-part name)
  • Indonesians, people of Myanmar, Saudi Arabians and many other people of Middle East (They have multi-part names, but take paternal or place names, not family names.)
    • Saddam Hussein Al-Tikriti is something like "Saddam, son of Hussein, from the city of Tikrit." Phrases like "Hussein's regime" is a bit strange considering that's just Saddam's father's given name.

Also complicating the issue is:

  • Practice is not uniform among Japanese regarding how they order their names in Alphabets, and which part to capitalize.
  • Hungarians tend to write their family name first, given name last.

Because of all these, some of ja. wikipedians suggest we should adopt whatever order the original language formally take. Only in the absence of the practice of the original language, we would use some simple rules like "First name, middle name, last name." (And of course, it is not easy to decide what is "original language" in some multi-lingual society...)

The issue of how to order a list of names is unresolved yet at ja.; among the hardest question is how to handle those without a family name. (We will be watching how you guys decide on this issue.)

I am personally thinking maybe it helps to see how some international organizations like UN handle this issue.

Tomos 11:39, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump:

A few questions (lists, see also, redirects)

Is there a bug in the software that adds a newline to large lists?

What's the correct format of the "See also"? When is it a good idea to use it? And should it come before or after the "External links" listing?

If you know that some article might be mispelled, is it a good idea to create a new article and redirect it to the correct one pre-emptively?

thanks

Dori 23:27 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Don't know about non bug with long lists... About "See also:" I suppose you should use it every time that you haven't figured out a way to include all the relevant links within the text of tha article itself. I would put it before the "External links". As to format, If I thought there were only going to be a few links, I would go for just plain "See also:" and the links following it on the same line. If I thought that there were going to be a huge list of other links that have something to do with it, then I would do:

== See also: ==

  • link
  • another link
  • third link
  • fourth link

...

and so forth.

About making redirects for misspellings, only advise is to use good sense, do if the misspelling is common, and the subject of the article popular. I would tend to create them pretty liberally, but others might disagree. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 23:51 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If they're only one or two links on the "see also" list, I prefer not making a new subheading:

See also: [[first link]], [[second link]]

--Jiang 23:54 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Voting block at the top of the page