Talk:List of Order of Odd Fellows lodges

Tags

It seems premature to start this new article. I've tagged it identical to the list it's been copied from at Independent Order of Odd Fellows, discussed in Talk:Independent_Order_of_Odd_Fellows#Justification_for_table_of_lodges. I've added WP:N as well, since we're now talking about a complete article. --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There was ample justification for a lengthy list not being in the main article. You and I were never at odds over that. As I understand it, Pdfpdf hasn't expressed a particular opinion about that one way or the other, his primary concern, I believe, has been that the list is not removed in its entireity. See below for further. AusTerrapin (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Justification

Ronz, I am starting to go around in circles here. Notability is established by the parent article, the parent article uses secondary sources. Per my original points on WP policy, third party sources are not required to reference the existence of lodges, primary sources are perfectly adequate and are indeed superior for this purpose - this is WP policy! You may disagree with having an extended list, but you are the only one expressing dissent on this. The list has been moved outside the article to avoid the problems of lengthy lists in the article. I have attempted to calm things down in the ongoing dispute between you and Pdfpdf.

• You cite WP:SOAP:

1.Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: This list does not constitute advocacy propaganda or recruitment - it is a list of entities with selected data about them, no more, no less.

2.Opinion pieces. Opinion is not provided in the list.

3.Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. The list is not scandal mongering, see comments for point 1.

4.Self-promotion. The list is not self-promotion. I am not a member of IOOF and it does not even promote the organisation - see remarks for point 1.

5.Advertising. There is no bias in stating a list of entities and associated facts.

WP:SOAP is written around the needs of prose articles not list articles.

• Ergo, WP:SOAP is not relevant so why did you use it?
• You cite WP:IINFO:

1.Plot-only description of fictional works. The list is not a fictional work - this point is completely irrelevant.

2.Lyrics databases. The list is not a fictional work - this point is completely irrelevant.

3.Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles [emphasis added] should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. This has passing relevance - it is the reason why the list was moved out of the main article. This point is aimed at the provision of excessive statistics within larger prose articles - it is not applicable to stand alone lists.

4.News reports. The list is not a news report, or even ephemeral - this point is completely irrelevant.

5.Who's who Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. The list is not a who's who - this point is completely irrelevant

6.FAQs Wikipedia articles. The list is not a FAQ - this point is completely irrelevant.

• Ergo, WP:IINFO is not relevant.
• You cite WP:NOTDIR:

1.Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic (for example, Nixon's Enemies List). Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists (WP:SALAT) for clarification.) This is not a collection of loosely associated topics, it is a clearly defined set of information, I have previously drawn on WP:SALAT

2.Genealogical entries. The list is not of genalogical entries - this point is completely irrelevant.

3.The White or Yellow Pages. This list does not provide telephone directory style information - this point is completely irrelevant in the current context.

4.Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. This list does not do any of these specific things. I have already spoken about the historical utility of the lists.

5.Sales catalogs. The list does not do this - this point is completely irrelevant

6.Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". This list is not cross-categorisation - this point is completely irrelevant.

7.A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[4] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight. This point explicitly refers to articles not to lists.

You state that WP is not an almanac - you clearly did not read WP:5P so I shall quote the first pillar for you, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs [emphasis added], and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects". I have just been over all the elements of what Wiki is not in the treatment of WP:SOAP, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR, so I won't do it again here.

• I have previously referred to WP:SELFPUB:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1.the material is not unduly self-serving; It is a list and is not self-serving

2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or entities); No such claims are made

3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; It does not make claims related to the subject

4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; No one has expressed any doubt on the authenticity of the material on the cited IOOF sites.

5.the article is not based primarily on such sources. Whilst it can certainly be improved, the main article is not primarily based on self published sources. In regards to the content of the supporting list, WP:COMMON has to be exercised. The overall subject has had notability established on the main page. The list is in support of the main page. The best source in accordance with WP policy for the type of information provided in the list is the organisation itself. Ergo it is not reasonable to demand a preponderance of secondary sources solely in order to establish the notability of this nature of list.

• I have previously drawn on WP:SALAT:

The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists.

Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists. This does not prevent the development of comprehensive lists, it merely provides guidance on how to most effectively manage them. Depending on how much further the current list is expanded, it may be appropriate to split into further componets. At present, however, it is not large enough to warrant this.

Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list). The list is not too specific.

Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. I have already provided a moderately detailed justification based on socio-cultural significance.

Ergo the list meets the criteria of WP:SALAT. Is the more work to be done, absolutely. As a stand alone list, the lead certainly needs to be developed a little more and there is further work to be done on referencing where this is absent. This just means that it is a work in progress and is currently not ready for Featured List status.

• In an earlier post I referred to WP:NOT when I was actually thinking of WP:NOTABILITY. So I will rehash that IOOF as a whole meets WP:NOTABILITY and I gather that you are comfortable with that. For separate articles to be raised on individual IOOF lodges, they would need to separately meet WP:NOTABILITY, in particular having sufficient secondary sources available. Meeting WP:NOTABILITY of all list elements is not a requirement in order to formulate a list. The list merely needs to have a suitable covering article that meets WP:NOTABILITY which, in this instance, it does. WP:STAND also provides further guidance; in the section treating inclusion criteria, one of the allowable examples WP:STAND cites is where most/all of the entries in the list fail notability criteria, ie to have articles in their own right - creating the list provides a means of legitimately talking about them in a consolidated fashion when they can't be talked about in separate article because their is insufficent secondary material available to warrant this.
• If, after all this you are still not convinced, then I am invoking WP:IAR as I believe Wikipedia will be enhanced by its presence for all of the socio-cultural reasons I've already raised. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

SOAP - the information appears self-promoting in nature.

WP:IINFO - excessive listing of information.

NOTDIR - #7 as I've pointed out repeatedly.

SELFPUB - the list appears self-serving.

Yes, I caught that you referring to WP:N earlier when you wrote WP:NOT.

Without any independent, reliable sources, I feel the material is too promotional.

I think an WP:RfC would be appropriate at this point. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

SOAP - you fundamentally don't get where I am coming from. If having this list is self promoting, then let's start wielding an axed to every other organisation that has listings for subordinate entities - eg lists of military bases, etc.

WP:IINFO - again you don't get where I am coming from. Looking further into this, I am even more convinced of the appropriateness of the information. Pdfpdf does not intend delving into the detailed specifics of every lodge, just the grand lodge tier and above. Given the nature of the organisation, this is an eminiently justifiable depth of information.

NOTDIR - #7 - Pdfpdf and I fundamentally disagree with your judgement on where the line lies on this. It is clear that you will never agree with our position.

SELFPUB - again, you don't get where I am coming from and I clearly don't get where you are coming from. I have no idea how you arrive at the conclusion that the information is self serving.

Without any independent, reliable sources, I feel the material is too promotional. I don't know what you understand by the meaning of the word promotional, but it is clearly different to my understanding of it.

I have provided a detailed logical justification based on WP policy and guidelines. I only see assertions of opinion provided in response. I don't know what experience you have with lists on Wikipedia, but it bears little resemblance to my experience of them - this list is comparatively tame compared to numbers of other lists that exist without this nature of dissent. I am quite happy for it to be referred - that was my next step. In doing so, input should be requested from WP:ORGZ. Having just checked the article page, I note that you have now expanded your original tagging of this page. I could live with the original tag (too many examples) whilst this was still under discussion, but the remaining points are patent nonsense as I have pointed out logically and with policy references on several occasions. AusTerrapin (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we just differ on where to draw the line. We understand each other. I don't expect that further discussion is going to get either of us to change our perspectives. WP:ORGZ is a good suggestion prior to an RfC. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)