Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
1

Prior discussions:

Contents

[edit] Project banner

Considering the nature of this WikiProject putting a WikiProject banner on ALL articles that are list articles is a bad idea. This is a scope of style and not a scope of article topic. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What we should tag is the talk pages of list guidelines and list templates, which is what is done for other similar projects (such as WikiProject Fair use, WikiProject Infoboxes, etc). -- Ned Scott 02:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, we can and should still have a method of article collaboration, but more of in a notice-board type of way. A WikiProject such as this functions differently than some of the more topic-orientated ones. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • IMO, the Assessment scale ratings help contributors see the status of the list. If we want to improve stubs, how will we know specifically which are stubs, rather than going to each list page and say yep that's a stub...few more clicks...nope that's not a stub. Having an articles by Quality list would help contributors who want to make major additions/improvements to move lists up in rank. In making lists to be FL status, it would be much easier to work on an A-class list rather than a Stub or Start class list if people dont have time to work up stubs, then they can work up A-class. How would we organize this then? -AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 14:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason I wanted the template on all articles is so that we could, while rating them , go through and delete the ones that did not meet inclusion status, why was it decided to change the purpose of the template? The Placebo Effect 14:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
That's one possible way to do things, yes, but we're talking about tagging over 58,000 articles (and growing fast), and in many cases over-lapping with other WikiProjects. What we should do is help other projects know what criteria they need to be setting for lists. It would be far more efficient to work via more direct projects, allowing them to do the bulk of the work. We're talking about an entire type of article, rather than a topic or location. We're not a normal WikiProject, and tagging articles directly really won't be practical or helpful. We can work with existing WikiProject banners to even keep track of lists statistics if we need to. -- Ned Scott 18:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of the wikiprojects use "List-class" instead of a quality-class rating. See Category:List-Class articles, or an example at Talk:List of Egyptian dynasties. If we could get the wikiproject-banner-code people to make List-class an additional variable (instead of a replacement variable for the quality rating), we could possibly use that to coordinate ourselves? We'd just need a bot to cross-reference the 2 category types (list-class + quality-class) and propagate a table. (easier said than done ;) --Quiddity 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is needed

To make lists successful in Wikipedia, we need a strong foundation and in particular a good "criteria for inclusion" in WP:L. Many lists end up violating WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV because it is more difficult to apply these to lists than to articles. See this essay for the rationale Wikipedia:Lists_in_Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List with potential

I think the List of notable organ transplant donors and recipients has potential to be a featured list, but it still needs some work. I'm too busy right now to work on it right now, but I thought I would bring it to this the attention of this wikiproject. Remember 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for list and suggestion for featured list

(Originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists#Idea for list and suggestion for featured list - is this place more active?)

  • I recently jotted down a list of the known burial places of English monarchs. It doesn't feel like a real list, but is it the sort of thing that has potential or not? See the Reference Desk question (and answers) here for more details. Carcharoth 09:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I also came across List of islands by area. What would have to be done to improve this towards featured status? It look interesting, but needs a fair amount of work done on it. Carcharoth 09:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most wanted articles

There are several lists included at WP:WANTED that might be of interest to this project. --Sapphic 16:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy/guideline discussions about lists and charts.

There is discussion at the village pump about lists.

See also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links. --Timeshifter 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List assessment

As I see there is a WP on Lists, what are your project's thoughts on assessment of List articles? I know there is a FL class, but do you normally then assess all lists as List class unless they are FL, or do you use the normal assessment scale: Stub, Start, B, GA, A, FL? Any insight would be great. Aboutmovies 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Similar question asked by me above, at the end of #Project banner, but unanswered. Needs a code guru I think, to either implement or explain why it's not possible. Perhaps, if you felt so inclined, you could summarize and ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. I would, but I've got a headache coming on.. --Quiddity 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this was discussed before, but we just didn't have the people to do the job.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a bot can go add the template; then those who work on the specific list can assess it. Assessing all these lists isn't going to happen over night. -AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 01:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In most cases one can just remove the "list-class" value from project banners and then use the normal assessment scale. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of time tracking software

Most of this chart was deleted. See this diff of the deletion.

Can some list and chart editors comment at Talk:Comparison of time tracking software.

It seems that almost 2 years of work was deleted for no particularly good reason.

Here is the chart before the blanking:

I think the main problem with the chart then was that the wikilinks were mixed up with the embedded citations. A minor problem was the inclusion of some specific prices in some cases.

The wikilinks should have been the only links with text labels. The embedded citation links should not have had text labels. They should just be numbered automatically by the wikipedia software. See WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Embedded citations.--Timeshifter 05:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that the links don't really constitute proper citations - as is being discussed in a new section of previously linked ongoing discussion. Nposs 05:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see what you are saying. Many embedded citations on wikipedia do not have the additional info that should be in a references section. But that is no reason for deletion, though. And some spam fighters may not like the duplicate link in the references section. --Timeshifter 06:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of time tracking software. Current status

Chart page destroyed by group blanking by editors parachuting in.

Please see: Comparison of time tracking software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Note the edit history, and the talk page. Ever since two-thirds of the chart was deleted by a blanking crew, the main editors of the chart seem to have left. What remains are mostly a few random attempts to add new entries by passersby, and some haphazard formatting attempts.

Most of the new entry attempts get slapped down by the current guardian User:Mrzaius who I have seen in other discussions with the previously-mentioned blanking crew.

Here is the version of the chart before most of it was deleted:

Think of the months and years of effort down the tubes. --Timeshifter 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help with list-related things

I've been getting hounded/harrassed by the powers that be regarding disambiguation and lists--even banned for a day because of it, and I tire of it. See Talk:Darker (disambiguation) (and the article I created based on it, List of titles with "Darker" in them), Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#disagreement about linking to dictionary DABs, and Talk:Mystery (disambiguation). Basically, all of this recent nonsense started over linking to DAB pages (at Talk:Discover Magazine (TV series)). It's just getting ridiculously out of hand and more support needs to be added in favor of disambiguation lists in Wikipedia. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you on this one. It's silly to add indices to DAB pages. I doubt many people look for lists of movies with the word "Darker" in the title. If you really need to, make seperate pages for the indices, or, better yet, categories. I'm open to discussion, though. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 16:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's just it; I tried to make a separate set index article for the "Darker" titled articles but it's also proposed for deletion. I don't think it's silly to add an index of related articles to a DAB page considering that's all they are in the first place--a list of articles about the title; I simply expanded the list to include a wider relationship. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability concerning lists and charts.

I think this little essay summarizes many of the problems I see on list and chart pages. Feel free to copy or adapt this anywhere. Please see some relevant wikipedia guideline/policy quotes in a section near the top of my user page titled "Notability concerning lists and charts." See: User:Timeshifter.

There are conflicting guidelines on notability of items in lists and charts. But common sense allows article editors to reach a balance. It is obvious that some lists such as List of English writers could not include all writers. Wikipedia editors alone number in the millions! It is equally obvious to many that technology and software lists should include more than just the big corporate products. Some lists even have separate sections for freeware, shareware, and/or open source.

All 3 of those forms of software are notable in themselves. The topic of the lists are notable. Basic WP:NPOV encyclopedic fairness requires some balancing by the article editors for any list. There has to be a balance between corporate and non-corporate entries on lists. There have to be decisions made as to notability in the community of freeware/shareware/open-source -- versus notability in the corporate press where previous ad money often talks in getting press and reviews. Decisions need to be made as to the number of users using a program, product, or entry. Sometimes long lists may require limiting list/chart entries to certain thresholds of number of users for each category. Also, decisions as to whether an entry is fading into disuse, and therefore unworthy of taking up an entry slot if a list or chart is already long.

So, editors should not just parachute into a talk page, make a few muddied wikipedia guideline/policy declarations, and then delete/blank large parts of the articles, entries, or sources/citations. All without participating in the long consensus process that preceded them on the talk page. There is no rush.--Timeshifter 03:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What do editors think of this template?

I'm looking for comments on this template User:Nil_Einne/Template:NOTE-L. Do editors think it's clear & properly phrased? Properly designed? Do you feel it's helpful? If you wondering why I made it, continue reading...

I'm coming from Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which as you might guess has a large amount of debate about who shouldnt & shouldn't be on the list. A month or two back, we deleted all red links, to end the chaos of people adding every single name they could find and as per WP:NOTE requirement that only notable entries should be added. This has cause some controversy and for a while we were mentioning the noteability requirement in the prose including a self ref [1]. After looking at a few featured lists a (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of HIV-positive people, List of notable brain tumor patients and List of people with epilepsy) I decided it was definitely unacceptable to include a self ref and also unnecessary to mention the notability requirement since from what I can tell, the consensus is that this is implied. Therefore, I removed the self ref and mention of notability requirement as per above. However this leaves us with the problem with how to avoid the perhaps well-meaning attempts to add non-noteable people to this list. To this end, I've added a bunch of hidden comments ([2]). However I also thought it might be helpful to mention the requirement on the talk page so designed the template Nil Einne 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the look of it. I removed a comma already. The first sentence might be juggled to indicate that lists and their entries are subject to the same Notability guidelines as any other article, but I didn't take a crack at that. -- JHunterJ 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment (RfC) at List of mind mapping software

Please see:

The version with footnoted references that people are referring to is at this revision:

[edit] Inclusion in embedded lists: notability

Wikipedia has scores of embedded lists that include a criterion, implicitly or explicitly, of notability. "Notable residents", "notable alumni", or "notable contributors" are typical examples. My feeling with these is that they should mostly be limited to links to existing articles because those have proven notability. Red links should be to topics that meet our criteria for notability, and be to articles that "should" exist. In those instances an additional external link to a reliable source establishing notability is helpful and may prevent an otherwise obscure name from being deleted. However if an editor objects to the inclusion of a red link then the best answer is to create an article on the topic rather than to keep re-inserting the link that goes nowhere. I suppose that on lists where notability is not even implictly one of the criteria then simply including the name without linking it would be the best approach. For example, a list of schools in a school district might list, but not link, elementary schools while red-linking high schools. I can't find any direct mention of this issue in the various applicable guidelines: Wikipedia:List guideline, Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia, or Wikipedia:Embedded list. Is this covered anywhere? If not, should it be? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see there's a current discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:Notability#Lists require notable entries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that talk section and its subsections are a thoughtful discussion of the issues. See also the top sections of my user page: User:Timeshifter. --Timeshifter 10:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
That discussion is now archived here:
Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 15#Lists require notable entries --Timeshifter 13:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phenomenal popularity of List of Pokémon

Since its merger, "List of Pokémon" has been unbelievably popular for the whole of 2007 with the viewing audience. In the rank tables, this list came: 4th in June, 4th in May, 4th in April, 8th in March and 14th in February. Consistently being the fourth most popular in an encyclopedia of 2,405,756 articles is an impressive feat. May I suggest that in the interest of public opinion, attentions be focused intensely on this page, in particular improving it to Featured List status? - 82.16.7.63 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:makelist

See Template:makelist. It creates lists. What do people think? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists versus categories: a very particular case

I have been watching the following:

All of the above proposed a mass deletion of the articles listed under Category:Lists of companies by country. The debate is not getting anywhere - one keep verdict is leading to another delete-all proposal. I have been asked to go to DRV with this, instead of a second nomination. But, since it seems to be a bigger issue than a simple-minded DRV I think it should be discussed here first. It is highly possible that an editor with diligence and enough understanding of the policies can go article by article to get them deleted through the proper process. But, it is always better to have broader consensus on a class of articles that keeps harassing the intelligence of many editors.

The appropriate reasons for keeping the articles in this category as well as deleting them have already been, mostly, discussed on the pages I provided the links to. Therefore, I am not repeating them again (WP doesn't have infinite server space and we all can make time for the few seconds it takes to go the linked pages). My proposition is simple - either have policy on inclusion criterion or delete them all. Help Wikipedia from turning into the yellow pages. Aditya Kabir 09:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Factored in from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Lists versus categories: a very particular case, which got removed by the bot.

The current format doesnt have any significant difference from the categories, the question is how a list should be displayed IMHO list should really include basic information, like name,ownership,turnover/revenues/profits,primary/core business, head office. Even red links should be required to have this basic to remain on the list. Gnangarra 10:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In this case I concur with the suggestion to take it to DRV, in particular per the difference between this outcome and this one. >Radiant< 13:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That's the easy way out. But, DRV may not be the right place to discuss the annihilation of an entire class of articles, especially if it's possible to create a guideline to keep the articles encyclopedic (i.e. inclusion criterion, such as - "no red links, please" - and, organization method, such as - "by existing business organizations categories, please" - and, referencing responsibilities, such as - "unbiased notable third-party references, please"). DRV would only mean only a delete/no-delete verdict, without any scope for further discussion on other prospects. Aditya Kabir 15:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, lists of companies AND basic facts about them would really be useful---but extremely hard to compile and maintain, if possible at all. If the lists are only supposed to be directories of company names, just get rid of them all and use categories. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Factored in from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Lists versus categories: a very particular case, which got removed by the bot.

I have been trying to discuss this for quite sometime now at different places, without much success. But, the issue still remains at large - the company list articles seem to be quite wild. Most are either useless or powerful spam magnets, some are way too long with some more promising to become so, and all are growing without the slightest notion of guiding principles. For details please check the discussion here. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would bring this up at the talk page for WP:CORP which is the notability guidline for companies and organizations. I would support inclusion of your concept there. --Kevin Murray 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I have trying to get this serious issue across for along time now, but no one seems to be interested. May be instead of bundling those lists in I should go list by list and get them deleted. After the first few debates it would not be difficult to figure out most, if not all, the keep arguments, as well as the counter-argument. But, I guess that would go against WP:POINT. Well, after seeing so much ignorance, while this silly lists proliferate, I'd rather igonre that policy and concentrate more on WP:BOLD. Please, advise. I am posting part of this to the policy discussion page as well. Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:POINT essentially says that you shouldn't do something that hurts the encyclopedia just to prove your point that (for example) a policy is wrong. I strongly suggest starting with a couple of lists that you consider "useless", rather than (say) proceeding alphabetically, or listing dozens of articles in a single deletion nomination (the latter two approaches could well be considered WP:POINT violations). And make the nominations separately, not together, so the merits of each case are debated individually. (And finally, I suggest not raising the policy issue in the AfDs; rather, let the discussion focus on the merits and problems of each list, and from there, see if you can find some basic criteria to use. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the problem is inherent to the whole idea of "list of companies", I'd consider my actions as WP:POINT even if I go case by case in an order of problem-judgment. It'd be infinitesimally more useful if the community could have a consensus on, at least - (1) intro and organization guidelines; (2) inclusion criterion policy; and (3) external link control. It's terrible to see adverts, spam, redundancies and endless lists taking hold of the idea. Besides, why do we need such a list at all, when there's a way to put relevant companies bunched together in categories? Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, saying "I think we should have a policy" and actually having a policy get written and put into place are quite different. If you're not willing to raise the issue via AfDs (you don't seem to agree with my interpretation of WP:POINT as forbidding damaging actions, which AfDs - in good faith - would not be), and you're not willing to post at WP:CORP, then nothing much is likely to happen.
And the issue of lists that should be categories has been discussed before: see [[Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, and Category:Lists that should be categories. The general guidance for lists, of course, can be found at Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) (Manual of Style); if the lists you are complaining about are not in compliance with these existing guidelines, that's another reason to take them to AfD. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I am not willing to take it to WP:CORP, I am apprehensive that this discussion will do any better there, since it is stated as a tool to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise) is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. Do you think that one is the right place to discuss this? This discussion is rather about lists, not company articles, and a very specific type of list at that, probably making the overall list vs. category debate a bit too all-encompassing. I have seen those debates, and those don't really call for a guideline to maintain critical lists. AfDs are for deleting improper articles, not raising issues on guideline/policy or whole category of lists. Do you think AfDs are the right place to do this? Not all complaints or observations have to be about not being in-compliance with existing policies. You'd notice that WP is an evolving project, and now we have a lot more guidelines than even a year back. I know having a policy get written and put into place is quite different from talking about the necessity of one. But, I really don't believe that policies are created without people asking for them and discussing the needs. Thanks for taking an interest. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleting them has already been proposed ad nauseum and failed to win consensus. I'm developing one list here List of Cambodia-related topics and maintaining 4 of the company lists from the various AfD's above - partly because of spam concerns raised in a much earlier AfD. So, what inclusion criteria do you have in mind? Paxse 16:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts. But, that doesn't tell why these lists should exist when categories like Category:Companies by country are perfectly able to serve the purpose. And, that doesn't tell what should be included and what shouldn't be in those lists. And, finally that doesn't tell why these lists are encyclopedic (as opposed to a directory, a yellow page or plain advertisement). Failing to win consensus once may not be a good reason always, as there is a process for 2nd or 3rd nominations, and there is a process of DRVs as well. In fact a lot of the debates I linked here rely heavily on a simple rationale - "the other debate had a keep verdict" - even if the other debate failed to address the issues that were being discussed. Aditya Kabir 15:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You say above either delete or have an inclusion policy - I'm interested in your ideas for an inclusion policy or discussing same - I'm really not interested in rehashing the AfDs. One idea that I have begun to do with the list I linked above is add a one line description for each entry - I think this will aid navigation for readers (which categories don't always do).Paxse 16:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Which lists are you watching over or have put a descriptor on the top? Aditya Kabir 16:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the fundamental issue is a combination of overlap and oversight. The lists of companies are all less complete than their categories are, so the lists are really nothing but a smaller and less complete version of the cats. The lists also requier oversight; clearly, if the issue is "no redlinks", then the category serves the purpose - nothing at all in a cat is redlinked, and there's no way to turn a cat into an ad or directory, which is not the case with a list. for that reason, I think cats are more useful and easier to maintain than lists. MSJapan 13:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reset indent. Hey MSjapan, Aditya. I tend to agree with both you and you make great points. However, I have also cleaned spam off category pages, [3] and [4] for example - cats tend not to be watchlisted like articles and spam can often sit there for a long time. I also think categories require oversight and maintenance (I've been struggling to sort out some cats for the last few days). And I'm not convinced it takes more work to fix a poorly maintained list than it does to sort out an ungodly tangle of misused categories and then recat all the articles <groan>. In fact the category mess is often so bad that there are a couple of wikiprojects devoted just to sorting out categories. I think the bottom line is that lists (if well maintained) CAN be an invaluable centralised index for articles. All the WP articles of one particular flavour (list of companies, list of Pokemon ;) in one place where it is easy for readers to find things they want and navigate either using the back button or using tabbed browsing. That's one reason I started working on List of Cambodia-related topics after a previous AfD. I'm part of Wikiproject Cambodia, which is fairly new, and we'd like to know where all the articles about Cambodia are - how many are there, on what topics and what topics are missing. So I started going through the categories and watchlisting them to keep them spam free and make it easy to find them again. Check out this 'list' of categories I've found so far User:Paxse/Sandbox5. Scary isn't it? There are still some I haven't checked out and watchlisted and I've seen 3 NEW Cambodia categories created in the last few weeks. Compare that with List of Cambodia-related topics. Which is easier to navigate and maintain? I think the real problem is that some lists tend to be badly neglected. In that sense the AfD's have been very positive in raising the issue of spam and vandalism in poorly maintained lists. But that's a relatively easy problem to fix - add a couple of lists to your watchlist, clean 'em up and keep an eye on them. Better still expand them with good links to notable things. That's my take on these lists anyway. Sorry for the belated reply and the long rant :) Cheers, Paxse 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on Cambodia-related categories. But, if you really need the lists to maintain a vigil on Cambodia-related articles and make that work for the Cambodia Wikiproject, you could try making the lists a part of the Wikiproject. Right? Aditya Kabir 15:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) 'Cambodia related categories' <shudder> did you see all those blasted categories? - some of them have ONE article in them, hell some of them have NO articles. That's what happens when categories grow unchecked. The Cambodia related lists are already part of the Cambodia wikiproject - we're working on them to expand, make them more useful and better maintained. During the last of the AfD's (list of Greek companies) one editor said that she/he was working on setting up a business wikiproject. They also said they may take all of these company lists under the project umbrella. So, once again the AfD process is working as a catalyst for positive change - wierd. Paxse 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was the user that mentioned the wikiproject (which is now up and running) and do think that if the lists are to stay then they should be under the remit of that project. However as we are fairly new I'm not sure there is the bandwidth to undertake the overhaul and ongoing maintenance required right now. My personal view is that all of the lists should be deleted, as they will invariably become duplicates of the categories once logical inclusion criteria are applied, and nothing links the companies in the list except that they just happen to be incorporated in the same country. But as has been said we've been through AfD a couple of times, so I'm not sure where we could go from here. Richc80 04:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Where do we go from here? I guess a policy discussion. But, no one seems to be interested. And, the lists remain as is. It's so boringly easy to fill WP up with not-right stuff! Sigh. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone has put an interesting list here. Check, please. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm baffled. Why is an encyclopedia collecting lists of "companies"? What purpose does it serve? Maybe if it was one definitive list of companies that existed on a particular date it'd be useful for 'the future people', but a list of ill-defined objects that change rapidly seems to be exactly the kind of thing that should not be here. A company that is verifiable enough to have an article could be part of some cat, but even that seems a bit daft to me. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of former members of the United States House of Representatives

This list is the largest article on Wikipedia (600k in size). To ensure centralised discussion on what to do with it, could any interested editors please discuss the issue over at the list's talk page. → AA (talk) — 16:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two articles that could be lists

Two new articles, Mountain peaks of the United States and Mountain peaks of North America seem to be excellent candidates for lists. Responding to my suggestion, one of the authors said that they did not meet the criteria. Maybe a reader here could weigh in one way or the other. Thanks.--Appraiser 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New sections in the Manual of Style: dates, numbers, etc

Dear colleagues

WP's Manual of Style has been expanded to include a summary of the recently overhauled MOSNUM submanual. Featured List candidates are explicitly required to follow these guidelines, as are all WP articles.

At issue are the new Sections 9–14:

  • Non-breaking spaces
  • Chronological items (Precise language, Times, Dates, Longer periods)
  • Numbers
  • Decimal points
  • Percentages
  • Units of measurement
  • Currencies, and
  • Common mathematical symbols

More detailed information on these and other topics is at WP:MOSNUM. Tony 06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeatedly unanswered question about categorical lists

Quoting myself from Wikipedia talk:Lists#Question about categorical lists -

Are there any guidelines about categorized or hierarchical lists, specifically "Unsorted", "Miscellaneous" or "Other" headings? IMO this is far worse than a trivia section in an article, as the whole point of a categorized list is to organize by topic. For a specific example, I would like to point out List of vegetable oils (a featured list), with an "Other oils" section. This section will not be interesting for people to read. Just glancing at it, I see that further headings could be made for "Medicine", "Cosmetics" and "Insecticides".

These sections can make the article look unreliable (see:List_of_edible_seeds#Miscellaneous), and can also mean that the item does not meet the requirements of the list (see:List_of_fruits#Unsorted). I did put the Template:expert in those, which I know makes it look worse.

Could some guideline be made about this? I would love to have an unsorted template (like Template:Trivia) to put into such lists. My basic idea is this: if an item cannot be categorized then it probably does not belong on that categorical list. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure if a guideline is necessary, but I'd say that such sections are definitely an indicator that more work needs to be put into an article. Maybe a template would be useful. Something like "This list contains items that are not sorted into useful classifications. It is suggested that the structure of this list be changed to accommodate these items." --Monotonehell 06:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, a guideline is too far. I have added Wikipedia:Lists#Organization (although the wording could use some fine-tuning), just common sense stuff, but it would be useful for referencing. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Lists and Contents pages

Please see a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists concerning the Wikipedia:Contents subpages, and specifically on the namespace they belong in. Thanks. --Quiddity 17:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition to Wikipedia:Lists; seeking feedback

Given the confusion I've seen in AfD discussions, I'd like to add the following sentence to Wikipedia:Lists#Criteria for inclusion in lists: "Review Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for further clarification (see also WP:NOT#DIR)." My reasonings are set out in full at User:Sidatio/Conversations/On_list_guidelines#Alternate_proposal:_clarification_and_alteration_of_up_to_three_policies. I'm bringing it up here before implementing such a change to see if there are objections. :) (And also to ask anyone else interested in joining the conversation at User:Sidatio/Conversations/On_list_guidelines to please chime in. The conversation is flagging. :)) --Moonriddengirl 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FLC

Hi folks, WP:FLC is an important process and is currently suffering from a lack of reviewers. If anyone would be interested in helping review some lists, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Scorpion0422 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for archiving

Is it alright to archive the discussion thread "Lists versus categories: a very particular case"? It only has archival values now. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion related to WikiProject Lists

Wikipedia_talk:Embedded_list#Merge_Triva_sections SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Lists

Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Lists has been updated from the 2007-09-08 data dump. --Sapphic 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider whether the word 'notable' can be included in the name of a list

As Will Beback points out above, "Wikipedia has scores of embedded lists that include a criterion, implicitly or explicitly, of notability. "Notable residents", "notable alumni", or "notable contributors" are typical examples. My feeling with these is that they should mostly be limited to links to existing articles because those have proven notability."

I also see someone saying above "List of notable organ transplant donors and recipients has potential to be a featured list".

There's a convention here that "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 notable Xs, nor list of all Xs." However, in lists which select notable people from a much larger group, I have found it very useful, as it helps to exclude the non-notable. Without 'notable' in the title, I find these lists can need regular cleanup because inexperienced users constantly add non-notable people to them.

I would make these points -

  1. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe the WP:MOSLIST convention amounts to a strict rule that 'notable' must always be removed from a name, and
  2. This convention seems to me to make best sense for lists in which the word 'notable' can be inferred, such as List of Presidents of the United States.

We have a user whose edits consist largely of removing the word 'notable' from lists all over Wikipedia, stating if anyone objects that he is correct. I have discussed it with him here and here.

Can other people please give this matter some thought? Is there room for 'notable' in the name of a list, or am I wrong and it should always be expunged? Xn4 23:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a very simple and sensible solution. Leave "notable" (or whatever) out of the title, but include it in the lede where appropriate. This should cover all bases within existing policy. Dhaluza 01:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That does seem sensible. Separately, I'm not too keen on the word "notable" for this purpose, although I don't have a better suggestion.--Father Goose 06:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that in some lists 'notable' isn't needed. For example: List of Presidents of the United States where ‘notable’ is unnecessary. To have a "List of notable Presidents of the United States" would imply that only some would be on the list.
For other lists I feel that 'notable' is needed in the title, especially for places such as ‘List of people from X’, otherwise all and sundry could be included. With 'notable' in the title, it implies which people are to be included on the list.
However, if 'notable' is not going be in the title, then 'notable' should, as Dhaluza suggested, be used in the introduction. Perhaps the WP:MOSLIST guidelines could make it a requirement to reflect this. -- Cwb61 (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I found that some users already started to remove "notable" from every list they can find. One thousand wrong edits do not make things right (quality not quantity people!). That's why it should be necessary to talk things over. Before such arbitary and hasty changes are made, I believe that people should use common sense. In other words, there is no blanket rule on this issue. I agree with the "notable Presidents" example (that seems pretty obvious) but there ARE cases where notable is necessary in the title in order to accurately represent its content. For example, lists of "notable alumni" should retain "notable" in the title (see: WP:NOTABLE_ALUMNI) because there is a prerequisite of people having notability in order to be added. So, before such changes are made, there might be a need for some discussion on individual talk pages. aNubiSIII (T / C) 16:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case, then the list guideline WP:MOSLIST needs to be changed: the reason for guidelines is to save editors the trouble of having to discuss every individual change before making it. You err in stating that the removal of "notable" is wrong, arbitrary and hasty: it is perfectly consistent with the guideline. If the guideline needs to be changed, could someone please suggest revised wording? UnitedStatesian 16:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
MOSLIST is fine. The word "notable" is redundant in a title. All WP lists should contain notable people only. The wording in MOSLIST is longstanding. That there are some lists that go against the guideline is not a reason to change it. Colin°Talk 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. "Notable" is implicit in almost every list title. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Notable is implicit in most, but not all lists. Sometimes it is better to have a complete list rather than a partial list of notables, especially when the number is manageable, or the notability criteria problematic. For example, a list of Henry VIII's six wives might be better as a complete list, rather than trying to decide which ones were notable or not. So the lead should specify whether the list is complete, or just a partial list of notables. Dhaluza 01:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Then it sounds like we have consensus: "Notable" should not be in the title, but the lead/introduction should use the word notable where appropriate, as well as indicating whether the list is complete or incomplete. Since WP:MOSLIST says this, no changes need to be made to that guideline. Am I on target/have I missed anything? UnitedStatesian 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of films that received the Golden Film

I have posted a request for a peer review for the list article List of films that received the Golden Film, in case you are interested. Your help would be appreciated. – Ilse@ 14:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Day

Since it looks like Today's featured list proposal is going to pass, I am here to recrute people to help get this going and help decide who should be in charge of it. Any suggestions? -- The Placebo Effect (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2007 (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) 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists and notability

What is the guidelines on notability for a list? I've looked at WP:N and WP:List and many various talk pages and archives from it, but can't find any conclusion from discussions. I'm dealing with an Afd here WP:Articles for deletion/Westlife songlist, does the list inherited it's notability from the articles listed on the list, or is there some other requirement? ChessCreator (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The guidance on the issue of what kind of lists are "notable" is, sadly, unresolved, and at the present time, handled arbitrarily.--Father Goose (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of solely external links?

Hola,

I'm surprised to not find any guidance, so this might be an easily answered question. Are list pages ever just lists of external links? List of Crohn's disease organizations worldwide is my original concern and consists of solely external links, but there's a couple others. WP:L says "The items on these lists include (but are only rarely exclusively) links to articles in a particular subject area..." implying only internal links. Is it obvious so it doesn't need to be mentioned or are list articles of ELs inappropriate? WLU (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see from the talk page that you have tried citing WP:NOT#LINK. That is sufficient and more than enough to justify an AfD. I think WP:L didn't think it necessary to repeat policy. External links should only appear in the References and (in moderation) External Links sections. Colin°Talk 23:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been referred to List of Systems Biology Research Groups at Talk:Microfluidics, with a similar problem (and a disagreement over ELs again, with a suggested solution of 'lets move them to a separate page). If lists are meant to be exclusively internal links, I'd say it should be more explicit on the page. If mixed lists or lists of solely external links are appropriate, then I'd say this should also be mentioned. Anywhere else I should bring this up to get more comments? WLU (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that WP:N should be taken into account here. If it's a list of external links that would themselves be deserving of articles (which, in this case, should be ok -- any research group that publishes in well regarded, peer reviewed journals should meet WP:N) then it's fine. If it's a list of entirely things that don't meet this criteria, then it should be deleted. In other words, take it on a case by case basis, with notability in mind. Don't just delete simply because it's a list of links.--Cubic Hour (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:N "only pertain[s] to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles". In other words, it will help you decide if the subject of those links could be an article on WP or not. If you create articles for those topics then you can create a standalone list that links the articles together. WLU - you could try the talk pages of WP:NOT or WP:EL but I'd suggest you just go straight for AfD and see what happens. Colin°Talk 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
My reply to Cubic Hour would be create the articles first, then create the list. You might find that WP:PROF and WP:CORP has a more stringent level of notability for professors and companies than just publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The problem isn't that it's a list of links, it's that it's a list of external links which aren't necessarily sufficiently notable to require their own wikipages. CH, my apologies, but the page will be my test-case for the notability of external lists. I'll alert you when the AFD is posted so you can defend the page, but you may want to review WP:ATA, CORP, N and PROF, and WP:AFD. I think it's deletable, Colin thinks its deletable, but you don't. Let's get some input from other editors and see what they say. This could very well be a test case for a large variety of articles that list solely external links. Colin - I'm going to avoid the List of CD orgs because of my history with Io. Depending on the outcome of the AFD I may follow-up on it, I may ask someone else to. WLU (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Listed, sorry for being curt, I've got to run. Posted this one by accident, but it's older so if gets wiped then the others are likely to fall too. And none of us have a stake in it, so hopefully more neutral. WLU (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have seen that you have cooked a plan to delete this List of Systems Biology Research Groups. Now I have moved this article out of the Wikipedia mainspace into the WikiProject Systems space, because I consider these list of great importance for the development of the project. I guess this is the third or forth time I have this discussion. You seemed only to be interested in applying the rules. We have a job to do to explain about systems science. These lists are unique in the world as Wikipedia and Wikicommons is. Why should you want to frustrate our efforts. -- Mdd (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said at Talk:List of Crohn's disease organizations worldwide, these lists of external links could only be retained as encyclopedia articles, if a paragraph is written about each organization. Plus an article intro-paragraph. See Wikipedia:Featured list criteria for the ideal end-result.
Meanwhile, moving them to project-space is a good idea. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Which I'm OK with, but should they then be linked to other mainspace articles? Also, section below for comment, which basically makes my comment here redundant. WLU (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Systems Biology Research Groups

In part as a test case, I nominated List of Systems Biology Research Groups, now Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems/List of Systems Biology Research Groups, for deletion here. Other discussions took place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lists#Lists_of_solely_external_links.3F and Talk:Microfluidics#External_Links and Talk:List of Crohn's disease organizations worldwide. I've found a couple of lists that are purely external links, and I'm not sure that they're appropriate per WP:LIST - I'm inclined to think they're a violation of WP:NOT#LINKS since they're mostly not notable enough to have their own wikipedia page and I think lists are supposed to be solely article links. I can see it being a valid resource for Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems but don't think it should be linked to mainspace if that's the case. So, I'm wondering about comments on the article and AFD specifically, but also about the presence of external-only lists in general. Comments? WLU (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me here in this discussion. I wasn't aware of any of the current discussion untill the list was nominated for deletion. As I said in other comments, this lists are very important for the WikiProject Systems. And it is a good thing to try to find some solutions for the problems here. I am more the willing to invest time an resources to come up with a solution. In the past year this is maybe the 4th time this has come up. I will proceed this tomorrow. -- Mdd (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

comments pasted from User talk:Neil#AFD question WLU (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this note. I believe that User:Dhartung's close of the AfD by endorsing the move of the list to project space was incorrect. If this were my issue I'd start by asking Dhartung to undo his close. If he declined, I'd take it to DRV. One of the benefits of an AfD is there can be a wide-ranging discussion of the future of the page, and it might be possible to convert it into a real article. Plus, there is no carte-blanche for lists of links to exist in Wikipedia space; the AfD voters could consider that issue as well. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure what the problem is - I think moving lists that are inappropriate as an article of their own in their current condition but could be a valuable resource to help create and improve other articles is entirely appropriate, and I don't think it's done enough. Neıl ☎ 11:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was the guy that moved the article to the WikiProject Systems space. I wonder what you ment with the remark: no carte-blanche for lists of links to exist in Wikipedia space.
In my perception there are different Wikipedia spaces:
  • The Wikipedia article talkspace
  • The Wikipedia:Community space under the Wikipedia:Community Portal
  • The Wikipedia:WikiProject spaces: the subpages behind the Wikipedia:WikiProjects
  • and the userpages and all the sub user pages: with I call the "userspace".
These spaces have differnt objectives an different rules. It is not so much that I want to have a carte-blanche, or that I want to bend the rules. But these lists are of some importance to the operation of WikiProjects. I would like to keep them on way or another. If you want to change all this. I would like to participate in the discussion and explain my point of view.
You allready stated that those list could be a valuable resource to help create and improve other articles. This is waht really is happening. I will go into the more technical details on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists page. -- Mdd (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Note it was User:EdJohnston, not I, who said there's no carte-blanche for lists of links to exist in Wikipedia space. As I said, if they have a viable use in improving articles, I think it's fine for them to exist in Wikipedia space. Neıl ☎ 13:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)So there is general support for lists external links only being moved out of mainspace into a wikiproject (unless I'm mis-understanding Neil). In this case, I don't think that the lists should be linked to mainspace articles, otherwise it looks to me like a way of avoiding [{WP:N]], the WP:MOS and other policies and guidelines - project lists are resources that can be used to expand pages, not as a content fork. User:Quiddity in the above section says that a list of external links is OK so long as expanded (in my mind a good example being the second box in Wikipedia:Embedded list#Lists within articles or List of 30 Rock episodes). WLU (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as to say "general support". The case is being made that this list is to aid Wikipedians (not readers) in creating articles. If that is the case then they are fine, though I can't understand how such a list achieves that goal. I agree with WLU that you must request the redirect is killed and you must remove all links to it from article space (talk page links are fine). Otherwise, it just looks like a way to hide from policy. I'm disappointed that this move killed the AfD. It should have been moved after the AfD, if at all. I suggest another list of external links be AfD'd. I really think that is the way to bring policy experts into the discussion. There is too much X says this and Y says that. X and Y could be talking rubbish and their opinion might be irrelevant. Colin°Talk 15:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Colin, particularly on his statement about the list being of aid to wikipedians, not to readers. There's basically 2 options - leave the page as is (in wikiproject space, unlinked to any articles) delete the redirect and nominate another list of ELs only for deletion, or return the page to its original location in mainspace and re-nominate it for deletion. Which would almost certainly result in the list being projectified anyway but would provide precedent. I'm inclined to go with the former. WLU (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Quiddity said, I meant that there needs to be some sort of encyclopedic content - a paragraph about each organization, then the external links would be the reference for the paragraph. External links are simply not allowed within the article text (except as basic inline references[5] which'll eventually get converted anyway). Note that I don't endorse this standard, I'm just parroting it. (I've seen many potentially useful articles, such as Color tool get gutted because of WP:EL violations. It's a complicated set of issues). Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Could somebody short explain?

  • This discussion seems to focuss on the fact that the listing is nothing more then a bunch of external links. And what to do with it.

Now I update the Systems biology list a little.

  • What I see is an overview of the world of systems biology institutes
  • and an overview of what Wikipedia is offering about this
  • such a list is complementary next to the systems biology article
  • And the Wikipedia community can help expand this overview

Why should you frustrate this attempt. What is wrong with these overviews? -- Mdd (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead definitely helps, but right now the list basically lists any group working in that area. Quiddity's comment above is that each entry should have a short paragraph discussing the notable aspects of it. Notability applies for articles, not really entries in articles. The point is it should be an overview, as you said, not a list - just a list gives no indication why the entries are important/present. A raw list doesn't tell the reader much. WP:CORP might have some ideas on how to expand each mini-entry, but I'd suggest using it for suggestions and not for it's notability criteria. Ideally every entry should be a jumping off point for a stand-alone article rather than just a link in a list. Of course, this is assuming you want to move it back to mainspace, if you're just using it as a source for the wikiproject then it doesnt' really matter. WLU (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My personal opinion is now the list is fine, the links in the text are to other wiki pages and the external links are all in the reference or external links section. Maybe not everyone will agree, but it's appears encyclopedic to me, not a simple 'spam like' list of external links it was a few days ago. SunCreator (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd tentatively agree, but would be happier if there were more labs with their own wikipages. But definitely a huge improvement, and now I have to look for another test case :( WLU (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are you looking for another test case? I'm sure you are attempting to be helpful but make sure your reason is not to make a point WP:POINT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunCreator (talk • contribs) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, not a point, to see what the general opinion is of lists comprised purely of ELs, and accordingly if any adjustments should/not be made to the various guidelines. They seem to imply that lists should be only internal links but there's not much clarity on it. Were I making a point I'd nominate the systems bio list but I'm satisfied that one is OK. WLU (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't like any external links in the text. It's okay sometimes if they are the cited reference, but then it's perferred they are marked up accordingly and moved to the notes/reference section. In a list is it much worse, this is because lists are a useful navigation tool (see WP:LISTS#Purposes_of_lists, and navigation is lost if you click a link and leave wikipedia. SunCreator (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-up to Lists versus categories: a very particular case

Given that it has been a while since this discussion and the lists in question (companies by country) do not appear to be going anywhere I thought I would try and establish a set of guidelines that will hopefully address a lot of the concerns raised in previous AFDs. This is the first step in having the project improve these lists by ensuring a minimum quality standard and establishing consistency across all. I'd appreciate if interested members of this WikiProject would review the draft guidelines I've put together, make edits as you see fit and discuss any major changes on the talk page. Thanks for your help! - Richc80 (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)