Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Laundromat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] This project is failing badly

The number of articles which contain, or which are entirely laundry lists, is growing exponentially. For every one you might be fixing, 100 more are written. You are trying to stop a river by standing in it. --Xyzzyplugh 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • More like trying to stop a river by putting signs alongside it that say, "This river may require to be stopped. You can help!" –Pomte 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ain't it beautiful? -- list lover
Will inviting more members to this project help? Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 22:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
what will help is a more realistic approach to deleting lists--it would have been well advised to start with a goal that would have been more in accord with the realities of consensus and the practicalities of how articles are written. for many concepts, lists or table are clearer than prose, especially in the hands of non-experts. . DGG (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree. I wrote about this at length below, in the #Yet another objection section. —mjb 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems like this project needs like a subpage with guidelines and how to effectively clean up laundry lists. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 01:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What we REALLY need: Collapsible Lists!

Certain lists are quite appropriate. We need a feature to support them more naturally.

Collapsible lists are the answer: they would remain inside the relevant articles where most appropriate, yet they would initially be out of view to avoid cluttering the default view. Clicking the "+" or the text on a line such as "+ Listing of imminent Wikipedia features" would then expand the list in place underneath. It could be just as easily hidden by clicking "- Listing of imminent Wikipedia features" or just by reloading the page.

Who can implement a great COLLAPsible solution like this? We need to do the right thing here -- with better software -- and resolve many of the List-Or-No-List battles across the WikiRealm.

(Editorial: Many lists are NOT appropriate, such as those which grow unreasonably long, which lack any natural ordering (such as alphabetic or chronological), or which do not naturally fit the parent article. However, the lists in plenty of tagged articles are really not inherently "unencyclopedic" -- and the definition of that word is surely subject to change with the advent of electronic encyclopedias such as Wikipedia! Requiring articles to look just like (and no better than) the obsolete in-print Brittanica does not make us "encyclopedic".) Parsiferon 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think about it, collapsible lists are the best way to resolve clutter while keeping short lists attached to the most appropriate sections of the articles they belong to. Otherwise we wind up with the usual mess: text-only articles linked to long list-only "articles", with no practical way to keep their sections and subheadings in synch and linked with each other. (Then the lists are deleted. Then they get recreated. Then they are moved again...) Parsiferon 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of a laundry list

Excuse a rather stupid point. I have never heard of laundry list or Wikipedia:laundry list. You say why they are bad, and what you plan to do with them, but not what they are. I think I know what you are getting at, but a bit of a definition or etymology would be good. Or perhaps the term should be used rather less in favour of something more descriptive. Or perhaps you could create the laundry list article. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I was interpreting it to be a over-specification of Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. This should probably be renamed to Wikipedia:Wikiproject trivia lists, or similar. -Quiddity 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Zzuuzz, you raise a good point. I'll add a definition to the project page. It's fairly common English usage. The OED lists a number of usages of the term:

1958 Spectator 4 July 24/2 Mr. Wardle makes a point of dissociating himself from the laundry-list species of biography-making. 1968 Time 10 May 22 The at-large ballot is a bewildering laundry list of 75 names. 1972 Fortune Jan. 3/1 As the archetype of U.S. corporations, General Motors is charged by its critics with primary responsibility for a laundry list of social ills, including air pollution, congestion in the cities, ugliness in the countryside, [etc.]. 1972 Times Lit. Suppl. 24 Mar. 333/1 A huge panorama of names and dates, as dull as a laundry-list. 1975 Radio Times 16 Jan. 5/4 Everybody knows..that there are exceptions to this laundry-list of woes, and that the author can be brilliantly served.

Hope that helps. Nandesuka 03:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An example

Would this be an example of the sort of edits we're looking for? - brenneman {L} 04:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Very much so, yes. I'm going to take a crack at Wizard this weekend, as an exemplar, as well. Nandesuka 23:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] awesome idea for a project

Wildlife articles tend to attract this sort of thing - X and culture in particular. I cleaned out swan today, apparently someone thought that the fact tha Byork once had a swan design dress wa important in an article on birds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup template

If a cleanup template, ala cleanup resources, was created, I would use it on articles that don't fit other other cleanup categories. It would have several benefits: a reminder to me of an article I need to revisit, a pointer to this project which would help get other editors on board and a heads up to list-prone editors that the article is about to be cleaned. All of the articles could be found in their own category, replacing the list of articles on this project page. It would be easier to tag articles. JonHarder 20:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the template, Template:Cleanup-laundry, which can be used to tag articles. I will start by tagging articles in the to-do list and also add the template to the cleanup resources page. If there is no objection, within a week I will remove the to-do list and replace it with a reference to Category:Wikipedia laundry list cleanup which will enumerate all the articles needing attention. I borrowed wording from the project page and a couple of the other cleanup templates to create this new template. Take a look at it and add improvements. JonHarder 22:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template:cleanup-laundry

This article or section contains a lengthy laundry list of enumerated items that needs to be cleaned of minutiae and then converted into readable, encyclopedic text.
If you are familiar with the subject, please improve the article by removing nonnotable, nonencyclopdic, and unhelpful items and then incorporate the remainder into the article's main body flow, with appropriate text. Editing help is available.


This template is very vaugly written. It sits at the top of an article, though it seems to be a message to the editors, would it not be better on the article talk pages?

Also not everyone knows what you mean by laundry lists. It is not a common term from my experience. While there is a link to the project page it does not clearly explain what the objection to the article is.

Imaging the message from the point of view of somebody who is simply reading wikipedia sent from google. HighInBC 23:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping other editors will help tighten up the explanation. I think I understand the intent of this project, but I'm not sure how to make a clear but concise template explanation. With regards to placing the template on the article page, that is the current practice for a majority of the very similar cleanup templates found on the cleanup resources page. The wording on those templates is much like this one. JonHarder 00:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tightened the template wording, replacing the phrase "laundry list" with "lengthy list" and reducing the wordiness. Hopefully this will make it more clear and point editors in the right direction. Below is the current template content:

To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section can be improved by converting lengthy lists to text.
If you are familiar with the subject, please improve the article by removing nonnotable, nonencyclopdic, and unhelpful items from embedded lists and then incorporate the remainder into the article's main body flow, with appropriate text, or discuss this issue on the talk page.

JonHarder 12:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That is much better, thank you. I really like the idea of your project. HighInBC 14:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 13:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

Now to be honest I will get this off my chest first, I felt quite offended when the Dead Rising article had the message "this needs a clean-up". At the time of adding the information in, I didn't know certain things, and felt to a large degree that bulletpoints are a lot more helpful than chunks of text. But of course everyone has there own opinion.

Since the message appeared, I have begun to remove the lists, which are not needed in the article. This message is a little thanks but I feel it will only be adding to your status as a project group.

I would like to raise one last point; while you say that the Dead Rising page is entirely a list in some form or another, I have been looking on your project page and it looks like you need to maybe critique your own page. --WarDragon 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rowing (sport)

This article is the main focus of WP:ROW and on a recent peer review someone mentioned it containing laundry lists in the latter sections. Wondering what that meant I found myself here. I cleaned up the section on event terminology myself, but I am wondering what should be done with the 'popular culture' section. Does it need cleanup, or should it be scrapped entirely. If so, should an external link to a list be left in its' place? Any advice would be appreciated.--The Spith 18:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My opinions is that the whole "Screenplays and television shows" can be removed unless there are entries that are particularly notable for some reason. The "Rowers of wider fame" seems more appropriate. Is there a way to choose the five or so most relevant from that list and put them into a paragraph? ✤ JonHarder talk 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

[edit] Stand-alone lists?

Does this project cover stand-alone lists as well? The reason I am asking is that I began cleaning the List of 21st century classical composers after noticing the Laundromat tag, but the tag was removed yesterday by The Transhumanist (AWB), who mentioned in the edit summary that WikiProject Laundromat only applies to non-list articles. A little clarification on the issue would be much appreciated. — Dorvaq (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Goals section mentions only non-list articles, but I don't see why not. Notice the Resources section links {{Cleanup-list}}. If that list needs cleanup, then tag it with {{Cleanup-list}} and keep going. Whether you're technically doing it for Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat is irrelevant. –Pomte 13:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: identifying articles to be cleaned

Nice list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.124.150.8 (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Lists of people

Hi,
I'm investigating what to do with lists of people in disambiguation pages. Please see the discussion here. --Smack (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:VPP#Lists of names. --Smack (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objection

I would like to go on record as saying that lists are a good and organised way to present data, and that the changes this project are enforcing are damaging to the clarity of previously well arranged articles. Angel the Techrat 20:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Sometimes a list is part of the concept or an orderly way to present examples. A prosed list is in many cases not an improvement. I would strongly suggest to act flexibly on the case at hand rather than declaring this a rule. --lynX
Also agreed. There are those who don't like them, mainly because they do accumulate spam. But this isn't true of all of them--they are are a convenient way to include information about the relatively minor but still appropriate aspects of a subject--it's usually enormously clearer than trying to make a article out of them by putting them in paragraphs, and much simpler and less confusing than hundreds of stubs--and then there are those who don't like stubs to cope with.DGG 03:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a fair point; I would err on the side in favour of creating separate "list" pages, for example, on the wiki on Honda cars, having a link to "List of makes of Honda cars", or something like that, because then, if one wants to look at the types of cars, one can, and the average browser just looking at Honda for some info doesn't need to scroll down past a huge list of every car Honda has ever made, thought of making, or will make! Aboyall 08:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with the premise that lists are somehow "unexcyclopedic". I would posit that lists of relevant, verifiable information about notable subjects is precisely encyclopedic. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-15 02:49Z

[edit] List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

You placed a 'cleanup-laundry' tag on this article, which doesn't seem to be appropriate as it is a list article. It has been removed. If you contest this, please post at talk. The way, the truth, and the light 07:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objection also

I too object both to the principle on the project page, and the way it is being applied. Lists are how people remember things--lists are a basic way of organizing--as a first step, lists are almost always clearer than paragraphs--as rhetoric, lists are almost always more effective. Magna Charta was a list, the Declaration of (American) Independence was a list; the Bill of rights (both the US and the earlier UK), were lists. In the real world, good laundry lists are organized and functional--they sort the items sent, and act as a checklist for what ought to be sent, and it serves as controls for making sure they all come back. Anything one chooses to disapprove of can be given a nasty name: one person's disorganized laundry list is another's functional outline, and one person's brilliant prose is other's unreadable gibberish. I am not sure of procedure here, except that projects can if necessary be terminated by MfD. To prevent this, i suggest the rewording of the project page in a more temperate and less judgmental fashion. DGG 05:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some anti-list activists are trying to gut the Al Leong article, referring to this Laundromat project as justification for it. Personally, I think such efforts are misguided, and would make the article worse -- and certainly less informative. Those who are for or against lists as tools for organizing information are invited to look at the article and add their opinion to the Talk page. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-15 03:10Z
I've picked the respective 'laundrylist' tag now about twice from the general catalogue Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup an reactions were rather negative, above being one example. I've now removed that tag myself from Al Leong, because 1) I don't want to subscribe to a point of view that all lists are unencyclopedic and 2) the section in question is anyway rather a table. Whatever is being done about this project and whatver the wording, it has to take into account that its objectives are based upon style guidleines. I will below add some more about the templates. That beeing said, there are indeed some people who have an issue with the current filmography section of Al Leong and comments are always welcome. --Tikiwont 19:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The laundry template

As far as I know, mainspace templates do in general not lead to projects and project templates are rather put on the talk page. Moreover, for a task oriented project, templates should rather not be put at all on, but it is better, if the project somehow collects its tasks on the basis of exsting tag categories and lists (sic.) In that sense, please rewrite the Template:Cleanup-laundry. Maybe it could simply indicate that there are rather long lists with respect to the article that may require attention.--Tikiwont 19:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] changes

I think it would be highly advisable to make some changes in the wording of the project page to make it less prescriptive, and to avoid stating till debatable criteria as if they were policy or consensus. It seems from the opinion above that there might well be sufficient disagreement for some people to move to delete this page--I think via MfD, though I'm not certain of the procedure for a wikiproject. As the project has a worthy goal of improving articles, and as many pages might be much improved if its advice were followed, I don't want to see that happen. So, I'm suggesting some changes. The clearest way of suggesting them is to actually make them on the page--I'm not trying to be excessively bold, just clear. Then we can discuss them. DGG 03:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

percent--what's the original source of the 30% figure & where was is originally proposed? one possibility is to leave out the phrase entirely--I would in fact prefer it because the use of such numerical standards tends to fossilize an originally arbitrary decision & hampers reasonable judgments in specific cases--regardless of the direction. OK? DGG 03:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Request

A number of baseball related articles are fairly extensive lists of information that exceed reasonable length. The List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters is a perfect example. The list is ridiculously long in length. I think some pairing down (perhaps to 100 or to players with 500 or more career home runs) would be a very good thing. Unfortunately, a few editors have a hard time focusing on the content of my edits. Instead, they focus on me. Regardless, do people here think that I am heading in the right direction with this? Perhaps someone here can review some of the baseball related lists, especially the one above, and offer some opinions. //20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sporting News Record Book, for example, lists only those players with 300 or more in their careers, which shortens the list to a little over 100 names. The recently-published SABR record book only lists about 50 names. With 500 names, there are many active players, requiring daily vigilance and thus running the risk of being incorrect at a given moment, as well as probably violating a wikipedia policy or two. Baseball Bugs 23:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a baseball wikiproject, and it would be very diplomatic to ask there before disturbing these articles. Baseball Bugs,do you think they'd agree? DGG 03:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] schools

A list of schools has been removed from some of the pages. This is a sort of a conflict, because discussions at AfD about the less notable individual schools typically have ended by having them redirected to the city articles. The current consensus there seems to be moving towards constructing articles for the Schools districts, and listing the schools there--the ones with no information with no information, the less notable ones with a paragraph, and redirecting the individual school names to that; the more notable which do have an article, which will include most high schools, then get a link to that article. (I usually am one of those usually voting for the school district solution).

What this involves is making the article if it isn't there, putting in the template, {{main|}} which produces for more information see main article: in the section of the city article, moving all the schools in the district there, and for the ones in red links, not deleting them , but removing the links. If there is no time for that, at least in might be a good idea not removing the items, just removing the brackets, because whoever does do the district articles will want them.Ifthere's instead a link to a school web site I wouldnt remove it, (nor would i look for one). Hydrogen Iodide, you've been working on one of those cities, what do you think? DGG 03:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I think that sounds like a good compromise. However, I think it would be best to leave only the blue-linked schools in the city article after a list or a school distirct article has been created. Hydrogen Iodide 19:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast Lists

There seems to be some confusion as to why cast lists are being deleted in Film, Television and stage shows. The WP:NOT seem pretty clear yet not all list are non-essential. Some Cast lists ARE NOT Laundry Lists. We are still incorporating them into prose and into the info box, But deleting from Musical Theatre articles is causing confusion to the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre--Amadscientist 05:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More specificaly...what if a Project Consensus is to add the cast list

Even if it is against WP:NOT. There seems to be some conflict here and direction would be appreciated to those editors who participate in this project that style guidelines differ from project to project. Project Musical Theatre is forming a consensus to include main cast lists in their articles yet they are still disapearing.--Amadscientist 06:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

The current template is not supported by policy. One of the options on the template must be leave it alone if it seems appropriate.DGG (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is tautological that if the item should be left alone, the template shouldn't be there. Nandesuka 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion related to the Laundromat

Wikipedia_talk:Embedded_list#Merge_Triva_sections SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Color articles

Since this wikiproject presumably has some people skilled in cleaning up listcruft, maybe some of you would be willing to tackle the currently atrocious color articles: red, blue, yellow, black, white, grey, most of which are WP:VITAL articles (making it extra-unfortunate that they're terrible). Wrad did a bang-up job on the green article, though it still has a ways to go, showing us all that it's possible to cut out the laundry lists, and replace them with prose. --jacobolus (t) 19:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An example

Would this be an example of the sort of edits we're looking for? - brenneman {L} 04:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Very much so, yes. I'm going to take a crack at Wizard this weekend, as an exemplar, as well. Nandesuka 23:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another objection

I see that the New Age edit mentioned above (in the "An example" section) didn't survive. This should've given you pause, but instead it seems to have gone unnoticed.

Lists are nothing to fear; they're a convenience for writers and readers alike. Like an outline or TOC, a list makes it easy to isolate and group together key points, as well as add in new ones and notice when edits are made. When used well, especially with multi-sentence items, some of which may contain comma-separated lists, a list, which is arguably just a form of punctuation, can break up what would otherwise be excruciatingly long sections of prose, allowing the reader to more easily skim the article, while keeping it evident that the items in the list have a common theme. Lists also seem to help would-be editors see where a topic has already been covered, which encourages them to confine their contributions on that topic to the same location, or refrain from adding redundant material elsewhere.

Blindly converting lists to prose on some principle that lists are just plain bad, and excising more than a few list items just because one person considers them irrelevant trivia or feels they take up too much space in the article can all be rather counterproductive, especially when undertaken by someone who isn't a regular curator of the article. When you're ignorant of what led up to the list's existence, and you come in with a hit-and-run attitude, then the wanton deletion of material, in my experience, leads to anonymous visitors adding it right back in again — only this time, it goes in more crudely and sloppily, placing a burden on others to go in and clean it up or constantly remove it, policing the article according to your standards, even though you're long gone.

Sometimes I think moving lists into separate list articles is a good idea; I've done this in the past and it has worked out fine. It allows the list to grow and be refined without distracting from maintenance of the meat of the article, and the appropriateness of content can be determined somewhat more on its own merit and potential usefulness for researchers rather than on its relevance to the article.

I really wish this project would acknowledge that sometimes, a list has already been discussed and there is consensus among an article's regular curators that it's worth preserving the list in general. Some lists could stand to be trimmed or made less exhaustive, sure, but to repeatedly use a category or template to demand a list's removal just because it can be called a "laundry list", without acknowledging the history of an article or explicit prior discussion of the list's existence, is irresponsible and, frankly, annoying. —mjb 02:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with this comment. I have gone through the same thing, involving an argument/discussion that lasted months, and finally eliminated all links (to stop the accusation of linkspam) and items without their own Wikipedia articles (to stop accusations of non-notability) and did other work to condense the lists of past speakers and entertainers in the Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium articles down to easy-to-read versions. I cited many other articles on events that have similar lists, often longer, often including many items without their own articles, often repetitious or filled with links, none of which is true of these lists.
I finally seemed to have satisfied the objections, with no more comments for nine months. Now the same old "laundrey list" tag was placed on them. I have removed it and put the reasons and excerpts of the prior discussion in the articles' talk pages. I hope I won't end up in another long debate on this issue.
I, too, believe lists can be useful and encyclodedic, and can contribute to the notability of the article's subject. There are no clear criteria for what should and shouldn't be in a list, and asking for item-by-item proof (as in books or articles citing it) that each item is important to the subject or that the subject is important to the item is, IMO, WAY too high a bar. I think that a list of notable speakers and/or entertainers who have offered their work/art at an event contributes to the notability of that event, and who is booked says volumes about the type of event it is. I can't imagine MORE encyclopedic data about an event. I have seen many other articles that enumerate what songs they sang, what year they played, what stage they played, what time they played... that may well be too much info, at least for the main article.Rosencomet 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hierarchy of Notability

These are some thoughts I'm kicking around for dealing with these lists. Using the caption on this project page as one example:

  • A list of individual washing machines in Ontario would usually not be appropriate in the article on Ontario.
  • If by chance an individual washing machine, or a small group of washing machines with a concerted group of fans, in Ontario manage to squeak by the notability standards and maintain a WP article,
  1. It is probably appropriate to mention in the article of an individual washing machine that said washing machine is in Ontario.
  2. It is usually not appropriate to add information on an individual washing machine to the article on Ontario.

So, in articles where, say, the appearance of a person more famous than the event they attend brings greater notability to the event, it may be appropriate to mention, briefly and in context, that said person attended the event. It is not, however, appropriate to write about the barely-notable event in the article about the considerably more famous person, as said person attends lots of events. In cases of equal, borderline notability, too many mentions of barely-notable people is simply a laundry list. Similarly, in the case where a barely-notable person is the fan of someone very famous, it may be appropriate to mention, in the article of the barely-notable person, that they are a fan of the very famous person. It is not, however, appropriate to write about the fan in the article of the very famous person, as the very famous person has lots of fans. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's right. It's significant to the washing machines that they are in Ontario, but not significant to Ontario that they are there. This analogy can be applied to "in popular culture" references too. For example, if an episode of The Simpsons made fun of George W. Bush it would be correct to mention in that episode's article but not Bush's unless the joke became so pervasive that it followed him around like a bad smell. --kingboyk (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question for the experts

Hi,

There's a discussion on whether this is just a laundry list in paragraph form. Previous versions of the page had the same links and books as further reading and external links [1], and they were removed per WP:EL and the GTL. I think this is an invalid way of re-integrating the information; it adds no real content, uses the links and books as primary sources, is unencyclopedic, doesn't really say anything, and would require original research to come to any conclusion on the contents. But I could be over-reacting. If anyone has an opinion they would like to venture, it's being discussed here. WLU (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)