Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Original proposal on WP:COUNCIL/P

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Description 
This project will encourage editors to write more lists. Lists are quite scarce now, and they're definitely needed to make Wikipedia as complete as possible. Compared to WP:WPGA. You can see a discussion on a "Today's Featured List" in the Main Page on this link.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. (nominator) Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Tompw (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. The Placebo Effect 12:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. --HamedogTalk|@ 05:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 00:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. -Phoenix 16:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • I suggest including getting exsisting lists up to Featured List standrard in the project's remit. Tompw (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I was thinking about that, actually...we definitely need more FLs in the long run.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 16:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming the first task is using a bot to tag all articles strting with List of as being in the project, and then deleting ones that are uncyclopedic. Would it be possible to create a bot to always tag new List of articles? The Placebo Effect 12:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Timeline ofalso count as lists. I'm assuming yes since some have been promoted to FL and not FA. The Placebo Effect 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • In response to Placebo Effect, Timelines might count as lists or articles, depending on their content. That is done on a case by case basis.
    • Also, do you think that we have a large enough consensus to start the Project?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • When you're ready, I'll help start the project any way that is needed. The Placebo Effect 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Goals

I think that we should add one bullet point to the goals. IMHO, we actually need to have more lists around WP in order to keep things in order, etc.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Quota

I would like to propose a quota that all WikiProject members would be encouraged to meet:

  • One new list sent to DYK per month
  • One list promoted to FL status per month

I think that implementing such a quote will encourage more edits towards lists, which IMHO are the most neglected parts of edits in the entire encyclopedia.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a good idea. I don't think it will increase quality lists, I think it will just increase the number of pre-mature lists going to FL candidacy, and then failing. Nominate when a list is ready, and not by an arbitrary time cycle. Encouragement is good, but there's a lot of ways we can go about it. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed,also in the interests of avoiding instruction creep and "missed deadlines" too. Let those who find quotas a useful self-motivator establish their own privately. --Quiddity 07:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contents

Could this wikiproject also help maintain Wikipedia:Contents and its subpages? We could always use more eyeballs to help give those pages more perspective, and we don't currently have an associated project page, as such. --Quiddity 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, should Wikipedia:Incomplete lists be merged/redirected here? It's very historic, hasn't changed significantly since 2004. --Quiddity 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contents is a definite cousin to this project. I've added it to the resources list (irony). Wikipedia:Incomplete lists does duplicate some of what we're intending here. I'd say that this project's scope is that plus general improvement. So maybe merge/redirect to here. The first thing I thought with "incomplete lists" is that pretty much any list on Wikipedia will never be complete. Unless it's a very finite thing like the number of states in the USA. But even that may change eventually. --Monotonehell 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't invade Canada!
I'll merge that one. --Quiddity 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You mean North Montana? --Monotonehell 22:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I mean Greenland's Mexico.
Projects merged, feel free to trim the verbiage. I hope the other cleanup rearrangements are acceptable to all :)
Also, the "incomplete list" link in the templates is now directed to here. --Quiddity 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

List of companies working in Technopark

List of companies working in Technopark (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[Note: I copied this from Wikipedia talk:External links. I changed my first reply to adapt it to here. --Timeshifter 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC) ]

Given the discussion above Wikipedia_talk:External_links#List_of_Mind_Mapping_software and related discussions, I'd like others' opinions on List of companies working in Technopark.

I consider the article a linkfarm, and started cleaning up the links when I noticed there were only 2 internal links in the list of 110 entries. I considered this reason enough to propose the article for deletion.

Since then, two entries have been removed and six others have been changed to internal. That gives 8 internal links in a list of 108 entries. -- Ronz  19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a linkfarm that will be very difficult to keep clean. Removing everything but the blue links is probably the best option. But then at that point why not just merge what's left of the list into the Technopark,_Kerala article? (Requestion 20:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

This could be discussed in several locations:

If the list topic is considered notable, then the perennial question is should only the big-name companies be listed, thus in effect, putting wikipedia in the position of supporting oligopolies of the most well-known companies with the best press that money and advertising can buy. There are conflicting wikipedia guidelines. See WP:NOT#DIR. It states:

"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted."

I think the main problem with the list is that it does not give any info about the companies, and thus is basically a directory. I am not sure which way to go with this, and would like to hear more discussion. --Timeshifter 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this topic up in this venue. I think it should be deleted as a directory, but I'd like to hear other's opinions as well before I AfD the article. -- Ronz  17:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe what is going on in India's technology sector is notable, encyclopedia-worthy info. See Technopark,_Kerala. If a start could be made in making the list encyclopedic by maybe listing some info about each company, and maybe sorting the list by type of company, etc.. it might be worth waiting awhile before an AfD. But I don't know the precedents for this. Maybe somebody can ask at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) for some of them to come over here and comment. The citation/reference links can be removed for those entries that already have a separate wikipedia page. The remaining citation/reference links need to put in the standard, numbered, unlabeled format. --Timeshifter 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I have done extensive work on the Technopark, Kerala article. The sub-page containing the list of companies working at Technopark serves an important purpose in that it avoids increasing the size of an already large article (the compactness of the article was discussed in its FA discussion) as well as in emphasising the number of companies working in the largest IT Park in India. As you may realize, creating content for close to 110 companies is no mean task. In the interim, as suggested here, we can look at organising the list and adding some static content to some of the entries. We could also look at more external links, but then it could be labeled a link-farm.
As the IT Park is a collective of the firms working there, retaining their identities is essential. This will help readers understand more about the kind of work being undertaken at Technopark and also help them make practical use of the available information. Hence, I strongly oppose deletion of the page. Thanks! -- Ajaypp 09:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

List of mind mapping software

List of mind mapping software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Could some other editors comment at the talk page there? --Timeshifter 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Group blanking

Concerning List of mind mapping software

Ronz removed/blanked the citations/references June 2, 2007. See this diff.

Requestion blanked the citations June 3, 2007. See this diff.

MPS blanked the citations June 4, 2007,. See this diff.

Nposs blanked the citations June 5, 2007. See this diff.

It looks like there is a regular blanking crew for this list article, and possibly other list and chart articles. Consisting of Requestion, MPS, Nposs, and Ronz. On other list and chart pages I have seen some of these people doing this type of blanking.They substitute non-verifiable (to the average reader) hidden source links (using hidden comments inside the wiki code).

I have traced it back to at least the beginning of March 2007. I note that occasionally one of them will feign compromise, but they always end back at this newly-invented method of theirs of using hidden source links. It is completely against wikipedia guidelines and policies.

I would like some feedback from others about this. Any other lists and charts that this type of blanking is occurring on? --Timeshifter 17:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Timeshifter is posting this in multiple places, I guess we all have to respond in multiple places, too. Your concern for sourcing is well placed, but there is a fundamental difference in perspective here: (1) the links are citations and (2) the links are misused external links. For those editors who subscribe to (2), it is not a matter of blanking or vandalism, but rather an appropriate application of the external link guidelines. To assert that their actions constitute blanking is a violation of AGF and suggests that you are unwilling to accept the possibility of their viewpoint (potentially disallowing the process of consensus building.) Namecalling and threats will not move this discussion forward. Please, let us return to the process of suggesting workable alternatives that editors are likely to support (embedded links without a reference section not being one of them.) I fall into (2) and would prefer that the links not be on the page, but I understand your point of view and have been willing to compromise on how the links might be incorporated into the page. What compromise are you willing to offer? Nposs 18:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Nposs wrote (emphasis added): "Please, let us return to the process of suggesting workable alternatives that editors are likely to support (embedded links without a reference section not being one of them.)" So you blanked all the sources/citations/references in a wikipedia article!!! The compromise offered is the one made by many editors on list and chart pages. They remove inline citation links for entries that have separate wikipedia pages with the source links found there instead. Thus no duplication of links, and thus no spam linking.
Emphasis added to quote below.
Quote below from Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline:
Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which provide source information for specific statements. Model articles provide general references that support all the content while giving inline citations for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. In some articles, where all sources used for the article are cited inline, a separate section for general references will be omitted.
I am being mild in calling it blanking and not vandalism. Blanking is the correct term when the deletion is said to be done in good faith. But the above guideline shows that you are mistaken, and therefore further deletions can not be said to be in good faith. See below:
Emphasis added to quote.
Quote below from Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism policy:
Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.
I used the correct warning template on Requestion's user talk page. {{uw-delete1}}, --Timeshifter 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of feeding the troll in this situation, a couple of remarks: (1) There are several editors on the page who feel like the links are not references, but misused external links. You really need to AGF, here. These are experienced editors who have done a lot of good work. There is no need to exaggerate the situation with all of this rhetoric. Address the disagreement - don't focus on retribution. (FWIW, I would suggest that quoting guidelines at this point doesn't address the disagreement since the other side can do the same thing just as well (but has restrained themselves). It doesn't solve the problem.) (2) Do I think the hidden links is the best solution in the long run? No. But the change was made and several editors supported it. Does that mean it will stay that way? Probably not. But, as it stands right now, the information is preserved so that if the final outcome of the discussion is to keep to the links, the info will still be accessible. The links are contentious, and in most instances, contentious edits are removed to the talk page for further discussion. (3) The removal of external links for items that have their own WP is not a compromise - its a widely accepted practice. My compromise was, even though the links aren't really citations, I find that there is no good mechanism for dealing with the situation, so lets utilize the ref system. Embedded link references? That's fine, but then it has to use a references section at the end of the article (and a way to do that satisfactorily without double linking remains to be seen.) But, this is all just my opinion, and the discussion appears to have moved far beyond this proposition. Nposs 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid the uncivil "troll" namecalling. I am not the one parachuting into wikipedia lists and charts and deleting/blanking the source links, and many of the entries.
(Timeshifter (me), Belorud, Quiddity, and Argey have spoken out against removing source links at List of mind mapping software. Nposs wrote: "I would suggest that quoting guidelines at this point doesn't address the disagreement since the other side can do the same thing just as well (but has restrained themselves)." Both the spirit and the letter of the wikipedia guidelines/policies on this issue is that info needs open sourcing on wikipedia. This is so that average readers can verify the info on wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Nposs wrote: "Do I think the hidden links is the best solution in the long run? No. But the change was made and several editors supported it." That is not enough to radically change wikipedia guidelines/policies.
Nposs wrote: "Embedded link references? That's fine, but then it has to use a references section at the end of the article (and a way to do that satisfactorily without double linking remains to be seen.)" It is common to see reference sections without any clickable links. Next...--Timeshifter 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It feels like you are trolling me because you keep quoting me out of context and inferring meanings in the statements that don't exists. Also, I thought Wikipedia was 'the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.' Perhaps I did arrive by parachute, but I that doesn't prohibit me from contributing. Nposs 05:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Your group seems to be on a "mission from god" to fight spam, rather imagined or real. Wikipedia is not a fundamentalist organization with true believers. We operate by wikipedia guidelines which have flexibility and can be adapted by article editors after discussion. We also operate by wikipedia policies which are more binding. --Timeshifter 06:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The warning template Timeshifter added to my talk page was rude and uncivil. This is the second time Timeshifter has templated me in an attempt to whack me into submission. Using templates as a debate tool is highly inappropriate. (Requestion 16:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
See, that is your problem. Everything is a plot to thwart you from your "mission from god." To you the forces of evil are trying to "whack me into submission." Maybe a warning template is just a warning template. Maybe you should slightly consider that you might be wrong. That you might actually be breaking some wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)