Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Two types of lists

It strikes me that we have, fundamentally, two types of lists: lists that are indexes of notable subjects with articles, and lists that are compendiums of minor subjects without articles. I feel that this basic distinction should be addressed somehow in the list guidelines. For the line that got me thinking in this direction, please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Lists.--Pharos 22:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the sub-guideline Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) is better appropriate for such a mention. Circeus 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability#Lists require notable entries and its subsections are a very thoughtful discussion of the issues. See also the top sections of my user page: User:Timeshifter. --Timeshifter 10:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That discussion is now archived here:

Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 15#Lists require notable entries --Timeshifter 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving back to Wikipedia:Lists

I propose that the title of this page be changed back to Wikipedia:Lists. It was changed to its current title in April 2006 (I could find no discussion regarding the move) with the summary: make purpose of page clearer, clear up confusion with Help:List. However, any potential confusion with Help:List is cleared up by the notice at the top of the page. The use of "guideline" in the title is unnecessary, non-standard, and (in my opinion) even awkward. Comments? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Silence = consent? Absent any objections, I will perform the move within the next 24 hours. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I consent. --JayHenry 23:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about categorical lists

I was redirected here from the Manual of Style discussion.

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 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding citations in lists

I know there has been some controversy in the past as to whether lists need to be cited. I have been taking uncited lists and checking the articles for citations and gathering the results. The results are that in most cases only 1/3 to 1/2 of the articles are cited. See User:Until(1 == 2)/Wikilinks are not references#Notes to see the results. Using wikilinks as a source does not work because Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the articles are often unsourced or just plain wrong. Until(1 == 2) 20:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There really needs to be a way for a list to piggyback off the citations in a main article. I'm running into this a lot: editors insisting that a list that was clearly broken out of a main article due to size and style limitations still has to meet the exact same stringent requirements of a standard article completely independently of the article that spawned it. It just doesn't seem like good policy to me. Torc2 (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lists of blues musicians by genre

Could someone please explain why the following lists were proposed for speedy deletion? I fail to see how these lists differ from any variety of musical lists. Thanks. (Mind meal 03:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

• List of Electric blues musicians‎
• List of Blues-rock musicians‎
• List of Delta blues musicians‎
• List of Chicago blues musicians‎
• List of Urban blues musicians
• List of Blues revival musicians‎
• List of Harmonica blues musicians‎
• List of Swamp blues musicians‎
• List of Detroit blues musicians
• List of Contemporary blues musicians‎
• List of Jump blues musicians
• List of West Coast blues musicians‎
• List of New York blues musicians
• List of East Coast blues musicians
• List of Boogie-Woogie musicians‎
• List of Slide guitarists‎
• List of Jazz blues musicians
• List of New Orleans blues musicians‎
• List of Folk-blues musicians‎

This is an incorrect use of WP:CSD#A3. These pages are not speedyable. The tags should be removed, and the person tagging should be told about the WP:AfD option. Until(1 == 2) 04:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is a dangerous discussion being had at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bands_and_musicians#List_of_Folk-blues_musicians on this topic, and if allowed to pass this could become par for the course for deletionist types. (Mind meal 04:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

I said they were not speedyable. But deletable, perhaps, I don't see the purpose of just a list when a category could do that. If it had some content about the list items maybe, but those are just lists. Until(1 == 2) 04:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now added references to each article. I created their corresponding categories in most instances, and created the lists to appear in those categories to provide a way to include musicians that currently have no articles on Wikipedia as of yet. (Mind meal 05:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

These lists are all still deletable since they are basically just lists of links, tarted up. They have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Electric blues musicians. Most or all of them are already categories, which is the appropriate way to handle this. Further, the argument that the creator advances that they are a useful place for red links is a bogus argument, since a more appropriate place for red links is project pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Hu 23:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, without yet having on opinion on these list. There is no problem at having red links in articles though, a wikiproject in general is not a better place for those. Unless you were speaking about these entries in particular, then never mind of course. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Electric blues musicians, List of Texas blues musicians, List of Dirty blues musicians and List of Juke Joint blues musicians each have encyclopediac content that go far beyond mere "links". Yet they are still up for deletion as though they are lacking something unknown. (Mind meal 15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

May I ask how you unambiguously determine the difference between Electric/Texas/Dirty blues using independent reliable sources? Until(1 == 2) 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple links

On such lists as The Simpsons (season 1) should people get multiple links. For example David Silverman; should he only be linked at his first mention (episode 1), or in multiple episodes episode 1, 2, 5, 9 and 13)? --Steinninn 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)--Steinninn 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there needs to be differentiation here depending on whether or not a list is sortable. In an unsortable list, it makes sense that the normal policy is followed, and only the first mention is linked. But in a sortable list, if a reader re-sorts the list, then that first mention may now be at the end, and the link largely useless to the reader. So in sortable lists, I think it makes sense that every mention of an article be linked. Geraldk 19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds reasonable. >Radiant< 12:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

New list guideline expansion discussion

Please see Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists. Thanks! Sidatio 17:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: Due to large response, this discussion has moved to a dedicated page at User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines. We could always use more opinions, though! Sidatio 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Lists and Contents pages

Please also see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Contents pages, and lists of lists, about the Wikipedia:Contents pages, and specifically on the namespace they belong in. Thanks. --Quiddity 01:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

List of people by nationality

Are lists in the category (and sub-categories) of Lists of people by nationality encyclopaedic? Do they they add any value beyond what the categories (Category:People by nationality) already do? I'd put it up for AfD but as it's a mammouth task wanted to check that it hadn't already been discussed before. → AA ^(talk) — 12:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the articles only include the years of a person's birth and death it's already added value beyond the information that categories can include. It's not always clear what "Encyclopedic" means when applied to lists. Particularly with lists, some of this information is really what you'd expect to see in an almanac, but that's definitely within our scope. In general, I see no valid reasons to delete these lists, particularly the ones that are well maintained (which is not all of them, but is some!) --JayHenry 06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess my main concerns are already being discussed elsewhere (User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines). Thanks for you reply. → AA ^(talk) — 08:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addtions to WP:LIST up for review

TO THE EDITING COMMUNITY AT LARGE

Recently, there have been several inconsistencies noted in Articles for deletion regarding lists. The conversation at User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines seems to indicate this stems from a lack of guidance from one of the few official guidelines on the topic - WP:LIST. This has led to several AfDs for lists being judged by points raised in essays like WP:LISTCRUFT, which has caused a measurable amount of controversy and contention between so-called "deletionists" and "inclusionists".

The aforementioned discussion drew insight from several notable, experienced Wikipedians, and has thus far seemed to come to the following conclusions:

• Categorization was intended to take over many of the functions of lists, especially the much larger ones. However, since categorization is beset with flaws like lack of visibility and search difficulties for new or casual users, lists are the best option for indexing information at present.

• Essays like WP:LISTCRUFT are often utilized during AfDs because official guidelines are lacking on what to do with certain kinds of lists. This results in the inconsistent deletion of some lists and sometimes dramatic arguments over others.

In light of these findings, the discussion has produced the following proposed solutions:

SHORT TERM:

• Introduce the following paragraph into section 2.3:

“ Further, there should be at least three criteria for inclusion on a stand-alone list of people, or two criteria for inclusion on non-people related lists. For example, List of Armenian women nurses, or List of mountains in Peru. If there's two or less criteria for people-related lists, or one criteria for non-people related lists (ex. List of Pakistani women or List of Chevrolets), they should exist only as index lists, where sub-lists related to that particular topic can be archived. A good example of this is Lists of Americans. ”

• Introduce the following paragraph into section 2.4:

“ Also, be mindful of the number of entries on the list. If there's less than fifteen notable entries that can be represented on the list, it would be best to keep that list as a sub-section of its parent topic, rather than making a stand-alone list. For example, if a List of French Olympic curlers only turns up five or six notable entries, keep those entries as part of Sport in France#Olympic Games. Likewise, if the article grows to 150 or so entries, it would be prudent to explore sub-listing as a way to keep the list from becoming overwhelming. ”

LONG TERM:

• Devise and request more visible and robust search options for categories.

Please comment on the short-term proprosal at User talk:Sidatio/Proto WP:LIST. For comments and input on the long-term solution, please go to User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines#Categories need to be a tool, not a source of navigation frustration. We look forward to as much input from the community as we can get. Thank you. Sidatio 13:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition; 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 12:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• You don't need extensive discussion to add a link from this page to another page :) >Radiant< 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Norwegian Americans

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 31

Come look at the deetion review, and help shape weather having a category means there cant be a list.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Lack of clarity

From the project page:

• "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics."

What exactly does "especially" mean in the context of "always"? Jakew 12:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it probably reflects the status as a guideline, which are often viewed as recommendations rather than strictly enforced rules. The "especially" indicates situations in which the recommendation is to not ignore the guideline. older ≠ wiser 12:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, it occurs to me that if someone decides to ignore the recommendation, they can equally ignore the recommendation not to ignore the recommendation.

To my mind, that suggests that the guideline should attempt to be as clear and consistent as possible. If there's good reason to ignore the recommendation, so be it, but I'd prefer that people didn't ignore it on the sole basis that it is incomprehensible. Jakew 13:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you find it more readable if it said, "List should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. This is particularly important in the case of difficult or contentious topics."? That might encourage editors not to choose to ignore the rule in the case of difficult or contentious topics, but clears up the ambiguous statement about unambiguous statements. :D --Moonriddengirl 13:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd find that a tremendous improvement, yes. Jakew 13:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So changed. Of course, Wikipedia being what it is, could soon be unchanged. Or changed further. But at the moment, it's up there. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

List style and formatting

There used to be a section describing how to format a list, including the punctuation at the end of a list item, and whether the first letter of an item of a list should be capitalized. Has it been moved elsewhere? Is there yet any such guideline? --Dan Polansky 11:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, Wikipedia:Lists#List styles --Francis Schonken 08:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

I have restored the long-standing formulation related to the need to have inclusionary criteria clearly stated in lists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Those segments never achieved consensus. You simply kept adding them directly to the guideline, in defiance of the prevailing consensus. I'm moving them here for further discussion:

The following makes no sense

List should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. This is particularly important in the case of difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit. Some lists are not appropriate, either because it's impossible to specify clear, neutral point-of-view inclusion criteria, or for other reasons; see Wikipedia:Overcategorization.

First off, I object to the erudite language this uses. "Statements of membership criteria"? When did we start talking like this? The issue here is the article's topic. Either a list item fits the topic, or it doesn't. If material is off-topic, it doesn't belong in an article. If a topic is unclear, it needs to be made clear in the lead. We do not need to invent new jargon to cover this. The guideline already covered this in Simple English. There's no reason to restate it in long-winded verbage. The Transhumanist 20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If the "verbiage" bothers you, please propose an alternative wording. The issue is clear: Lists need to have an unambiguous criteria for inclusion, and the criteria needs to be supported by sources, as per any other article in WP. When you say "topic" that does not explain anything. Many trivial lists are about "topics" that either do not meet notability guidelines, or that are not verifiable, and as such violate our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your consensus challenge, that wording has been there for a while and as such, it represents consensus. If you or any other editor challenges it, let's discuss. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's not how policies and guidelines are created. The proposal process requires that they be adopted first. And your proposal was rejected, yet you kept adding it to the guideline itself directly anyways. I'm here to reverse your abuse of the system. Besides, the guideline already covered this -- your addition was entirely redundant. And confusing. The Transhumanist 20:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear what "Statements of membership criteria" means. Taken literally, it would mean "instructions on what should and should not go in the list". But we don't include instructions in Wikipedia articles on how to develop those articles. It also implies that we should use that language in the article itself. "The criteria for membership in this list is:" That's a longwinded way and round-about way of defining the topic, and it seems totally inappropriate to have this line repeated in every list. The guideline should simply state that the topic should be defined well enough in the lead that the reader knows what the list is of. The Transhumanist 20:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the inclusion criteria bit so that it is understandable. The meaning is still there, but it is much clearer what that meaning is. The Transhumanist 20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Many admins (jossi, jreferee, crum375, moonriddengirl, etc) have contributed to this segment, and edit warring on the page with them is both impolite and impractical - instead, take it to the talkpage first, as they/we keep requesting. Also, please don't use bad-faith-implying edit summaries ("remove stealth additions"), or falsely assert that this is some kind of unilateral action. --Quiddity 20:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was involved in the original discussion, in which the passage was rejected. If I remember right, there was an edit war over it then, as Jossi kept going straight to the guideline page regardless of the posts on the talk page. That's changing policy by brute force. Note that the guideline stated the same thing twice. Once by instructing to define the topic in the lead section. And again by describing it as stating inclusion criteria. This has caused a lot of confusion in AfDs, because nobody seems to even know what a statement of inclusion criteria is. The Transhumanist 21:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There is not need to get all worked up because there are disputes in AfDs (what is new?) I am sure that we can find a suitable wording that refers to a lead and that refers to a need to specify in the lead what is the criteria for inclusion. We need to put a stop to malicious/irrelevant/un-encyclopedic/trivial lists so that lists in Wikipedia are developed as any other article and do not bypass our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"statement of inclusion criteria", is a statement made in the lead in which it is explained what the list is about, and what criteria, if any, is needed to add a list member. For example: List of scholastic philosophers has the criteria: This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism, which makes it clear what this list is about. Another example is List_of_Skull_and_Bones_members, in which a more lengthy lead was needed, given the related controversy : Skull and Bones, a secret society at Yale University, was founded in 1832. Until 1971, the organization published annual membership rosters, which were kept at Yale's library. In this list of notable Bonesmen, the number in parentheses represents the cohort year of Skull and Bones, as well as their graduation year from Yale. As there are no official rosters published post 1971, membership for later years is highly speculative, and has attracted conspiracy theorists who claim them to be a power elite. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What is a "statement of inclusion criteria"?

It's not at all clear to what you are referring to. I keep running into AfDs where nominators claim there is no inclusion criteria specified, when the title makes it perfectly clear. The Transhumanist 00:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If there is a dispute it meas that it is not so "absolutely clear". If it was, you would not have a dispute, would you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I inadvertantly left out the word "no". Sorry for the typo. What I was saying was, that the reason for deletion given was "no inclusion criteria", even though the title made it obvious. The Transhumanist 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what a "statement of inclusion criteria is", and how it differs from a definition of the topic. The Transhumanist 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If a topic is well chosen, the list name may be self-explanatory, but this is not always the case. For example compare List of charismatic leaders with List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority. So, lists whose title is not so tight as per this example need an inclusion for criteria such as: This is a list of people whose leadership has been characterized as based on charismatic authority by listed sources. Charismatic authority is a sociological concept and one of three forms of authority as defined by Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority.. Another example is List of countries by prevalence of opiates abuse that establishes that This is a list of countries (and some territories) by the annual prevalence of opiates abuse as percentage of the population aged 15-64 (unless otherwise indicated). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Another good example is List of important publications in sociology, which states a series of reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important, thus providing an good sense of an inclusion criteria. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A good example of a list without inclusion criteria is List of guerrilla movements, which is unsourced, leaves the list open for POV pushing and demonstrates the need to have such an inclusion criteria presented in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Which list was in AfD in which the argument for deletion was "lack of inclusion criteria"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(BTW, such argument in an AfD is silly. If there is no inclusion criteria, add one). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lists are articles

Lists are not a special kind of article, as lists reside in Wikipedia article's mainspace and are actual articles. As such, lists cannot bypass any of our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said they could. But they are not regular articles, they are lists. If they weren't different, they wouldn't have their own name. Hence, they are a type of article, because we can refer to them by type. "Stand-alone lists". Note that they can and do bypass at least one guideline, that of WP:SELF, while there are other guidelines that pertain to regular articles don't pertain to lists (such as the formatting of material into paragraphs). The Transhumanist 20:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please respond rather than revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I challenge these editors that are removing the reference that stand-alone lists are articles to explain the reason behind their reluctance to accept that obvious fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I see now the problem clearly: There is no such a thing as a "special type of article". All pages in mainspace carry the same burden. The fact that an article is named "Lis of xxxx" means absolutely nothing as it pertains to the need to abide by our policies. A list about which membership is not obvious would fail our policy of WP:V and in some cases will violate WP:NOR, that is why we need a statement in the lead that states inclusion criteria. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is a style guide and not a policy, and as such it cannot trump the latter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that we are that far apart in our understanding, and the current wording may be sufficient to highlight the concerns I was expressing. May be a lead to this guideline can summarize the salient points of this guideline, including the fact that lists are articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi that lists are no different than any other article and need to meet all content policies, including WP:V. They are articles. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Embedded lists and lead sections

Embedded lists don't usually have a lead section.

The concept of lead section (in Wikipedia context) is explained in Wikipedia:Lead section.

Maybe some examples might help:

• The section Leoš Janáček#Janáček's operas is a list that doesn't have a lead section. The Leoš Janáček article has a lead section (as any other article), the embedded list Leoš Janáček#Janáček's operas however doesn't have a lead section.
• template:Janacek operas is an embedded list by template. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Janacek_operas for transclusions of that list. The list has a title ("Operas by Leoš Janáček") as explained in (and conforming to) Wikipedia:Lists#List title, but there is no lead section.

Can anyone demonstrate what kind of lead section (if any) would be beneficial to such embedded lists? --Francis Schonken 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As per the current text in the guideline, a lead section in an embedded list is needed in situations where a lead is needed to explain/dispel ambiguities. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe read the relevant part of the guideline (Wikipedia:Lists#Lead section) again, three minutes before your talk page comment you changed it to implicate that all lists (including embedded lists) should have a lead section. [1] --Francis Schonken 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No. You changed it before that. The wording was there added by User:The Transhumanist before you reverted it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, you reverted the section to a version that implicated that all lists (including embedded lists) should have a lead section.

Concerning the lead sections of embedded lists I changed back to what was there before 19:59, 7 October 2007 [2]

Anyway, my actual point was that your assertion above ("As per the current text in the guideline, a lead section in an embedded list is needed in situations where a lead is needed to explain/dispel ambiguities") was incorrect due to a change or revert you had performed just before, and that I asked you to have a look at the wording of the current guideline text.

I conclude that you don't agree with the current guideline text with regard to the obligation to provide a lead section for every embedded list. Or what did you want to say, apart from pointing out that I used the word "change" where I should have used the word "revert"? --Francis Schonken 16:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What about stand-alone lists which are not "lists of links"?

One thing that is noticeably absent from this guideline is the acknowledgement that we also include stand-alone lists which are not just "lists of links". For example, List of Pokémon (481-493), or List of minor Heroes characters with special abilities. These are often a collection of stub or stub-like mini-articles, which may not be individually notable enough for separate articles, but are notable as a group. I'd fix it myself, but I thought I'd first get discussion on how such an explanation should be worded. DHowell 02:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the text more generic while sticking to the original formulation as much as possible. Dhaluza 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

If interested, please join a discussion on the above topic Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Lists UnitedStatesian 13:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories vs Lists

I've seen a couple of lists that are exact mirrors of a category. Is there a point to having two articles with identical information? --Neon white 18:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely, there is:
  • Firstly, inexperienced users are more likely encounter the list than the category: finding and using categories involves a bit of understanding of how Wikipedia works. I certainly found this to be true when I was a newbie.
  • Secondly and more crucially, the list has the potential to expand in ways the category cannot. Expansion could include:
    • annotation;
    • red-links;
    • items which might not have sufficient individual notability, or sufficient sourced material, for a separate article of their own.
• The point is to recognise that Wikipedia is a work in progress, not to view it as a static document like a printed encyclopedia. AndyJones 08:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Andy is correct. In addition, lists can also be expanded to include:

• structure (headings, subheadings, special order of presentation other than alphabetical sorting)
• subsection leads
• linked annotations and parenthetical notes
• formatting
  • charts
  • customized columnization
  • numeration
  • etc.
• images throughout the article to help illustrate concepts
• templates throughout to help assist navigation (such as {{main}})
• inline citations (footnotes) to verify includability of each item
• a references section (recommended reading)
• a see also section (at the end of the article)
• an external links section (ditto)
• and probably more.

Lists have other benefits which make them more useful than categories:

• They can be linked together in ways and in patterns that categories cannot.
• Lists are supported by edit histories, and are easier to monitor for disappearing items
• Lists support related changes better, because lists can be longer (not subject to the same subsegmentation as categories), and are great for monitoring changes to the articles they list.
• Lists are directly editable, and not subject to the item change delays experienced in category work (due to the necessity of saving each time an item is added to, deleted from, or moved to or from a category). In lists, items can be edited continuously without saves, and copied, deleted, or moved in blocks. Therefore a listworker can develop, monitor, and maintain many times more entries than a category worker can handle in the same amount of time.
• Lists are articles and have all the benefits they have, such as being in the main namespace
• They can be linked to from articles (links to categories are frowned upon at best)
• Lists are scrollable (categories are chopped into small subcategories, and long categories are displayed one category at a time)
• Lists are are supported by a list-based table of contents system, which itself has all the benefits listed above

The Transhumanist    22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The guideline for this is at WP:CLS. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction between Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references

This list guideline defines lists and lists of lists as articles; and the main namespace is where articles belong. The avoid self-references guideline advises against references in the main namespace to Wikipedia or any of its components; the word "list" in every list page title is self-referential in this regard, because it refers to a list in Wikipedia rather than a list (such as a published list) in the external world. This means that all lists in the main namespace violate WP:ASR, but lists (and lists of lists) are allowed by this list guideline which designates them as articles.

Due to this contradiction, the pages "Lists of topics", "Lists of basic topics", and "List of glossaries" have been moved to the portal namespace, apparently because they are all lists of lists. I believe they are articles as defined by this list guideline. Wikipedia has many lists of lists, including Lists of mathematics topics, and they are all in clear violation of WP:ASR. Our guidelines need to be in agreement as to where lists and lists of lists belong so that their location remains stable and not subject to being moved by editors enforcing one guideline over another.

This contradiction needs to be removed by referring to the relevant passages of Wikipedia:Lists in WP:ASR, or by some other remedy, so that editors are aware of them, and to prevent conflicts between list builders and ASR enforcers.

The Transhumanist    06:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding, in my opinion, of WP:ASR. It's perfectly okay for an article to say "in this article" but not "in this Wikipedia article" or "on this webpage" - we need to keep it independent of the medium and source, but not the fundamental form, based on how we intend to reuse it. Likewise, it's okay for a list to say that it is, in fact, a list - because it'll make sense in most realistic reuse scenarios, regardless of medium or rebranding. There's an evident ambiguity between lists and articles about real-world lists, but this is no thornier a problem than the conflict between individuals and movies named after those individuals - disambiguation can handle it. As for lists of lists, I think they're legitimate lists - lists aren't lists of real-world things, they're lists of articles, lists of topics, which can include other lists. Would rather see them remain in the name mainspace. Dcoetzee 08:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially considering the first sentence of WP:ASR: "Avoid self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project" (emphasis mine). WP:ASR#Neutral references IMO applies to this situation if anything more is needed. Anomie 12:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Articles are allowed to refer to themselves as articles. The ASR guideline is intended to address self-referencing the Wikipedia project itself, or its website-nature.

Possibly the Lists of mathematics topics needs to go through Wikipedia:Featured article review Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates, as standards have changed since 2005.

The main discussion of what namespace these Contents pages belong in, is at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists, which we'd welcome further feedback at. --Quiddity 18:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who's agreeing with who here, but what I read at ASR definitely seems to indicate that language like "This article attempts to list all lists collecting articles about mathematics in Wikipedia" from Lists of mathematics topics and "This is a list of abstract algebra topics, by Wikipedia page" from List of abstract algebra topics is self-referential.

That said, I don't like how Francis Schonken undertook a mass move of these articles without any apparent discussion beforehand, which has tremendous impact on The Transhumanist's List of Topics project. Give an editor a heads-up if you think something's amiss instead of going right for the cockblock.--Father Goose 18:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Those two examples are self-references, but this guideline itself isn't contradictory to WP:ASR. Anomie 19:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. They are self-referential because they are self-referential, not because they are lists of lists.--Father Goose 19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the move, and he sure didn't notify me beforehand. Those 3 lists don't refer to Wikipedia at all, the mover appears to believe that the inclusion of the word "list" or "glossary" in the title of the articles linked to, or "lists" in the page title itself, makes them self-referential as per WP:ASR. Someone please move them back. The Transhumanist 22:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "[...] The Transhumanist's [...] project" (quoted from above): nobody seems to be worried about the WP:OWN implications of such assertion. Could we sort this out first? Who owns which project? --Francis Schonken 23:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"His project" as in "project he founded and was actively working on". Why would you invoke WP:OWN the second you see a grammatical possessive used? The project is something The Transhumanist and others are working on in good faith, and doing a mass relocation of the articles within the project's scope without discussing it with anyone beforehand is pugilistic and disruptive even if the relocation may be prove to be appropriate. Personally, I'm probably in favor of moving them, but taking an action like this without prior discussion is initiating an edit war on a massive scale. Starting fights like this is nothing but a negative for Wikipedia.--Father Goose 03:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A bold summary

1. The namespace they belong in, is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Contents. The latest comment there explains it quite well. As I've explained elsewhere, The Transhumanist is the only editor who makes a strong stance against moving them out of article-space. As he has contributed a lot of work to these contents lists, and because I've hotly debated many things with him in the past, I've tried to let consensus develop first, and advocated against anyone being bold. HOWEVER, based on the current state of the discussion at the aforementioned page, there is a consensus that they belong outside articlespace. I'm quite happy to let the moves stand.
2. As I said above, Lists of mathematics topics probably needs to go through Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates, or review, or something. It is inadequately cited, and is self-referencing. (Someone please do so. I don't know enough about the topic itself or about Featured-ness to do so)
3. Re: OWN: The Transhumanist is an extremely enthusiastic and self-confident editor. He is quite careful to avoid statements of ownership, but his editing/writing-style does tend to give the impression of both ownership and adminship. He is generally a very good editor, except when he does incomprehensible things like nominating a list without references for Featured status, twice in a row. There was no need to notify him of these moves, but it would have been a good idea to at least check the lists' talkpages first, all of which should have a pointer to the aforementioned discussion on namespaces; or to have independently started a move discussion prior to moving what are highly-visible pages.
4. My only new suggestion for the Basic topic lists, is that they become tabs/subpages of portals, like Portal:Energy/Explore and Portal:Science/Categories and Main topics are. Unless reliable sources can be found, I don't know what else to advocate doing with them. I don't think The Transhumanist is going to like that idea though, as they won't be visible enough (E.g. no articles link to Special:Whatlinkshere/Portal:Energy/Explore, and I presume they cannot do so?). There are not enough editors watching Portal talk:Lists of basic topics or the new Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists of basic topics to develop a consensus there. Suggestions are needed.

I've spent an hour re-writing this, so hopefully it is clear and calm and concise enough for everyone. Thoughts? --Quiddity 03:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To address each point above:

1. To say that a consensus has been reached over at Wikipedia:Contents is very misleading, because many of the counterarguments were never addressed, so the opinions of the posters are being tallied even though though those posters never returned to consider the replies to their posts. It is the strength of the reasons which need to be weighed, and not merely the !vote count. Another problem is that the !vote count on the Wikipedia:Contents talk page (in favor of moving certain lists out of article space) is inconsistent with Wikipedia's guideline on lists (the talk page of which we're on right now) which defines lists as articles. A third problem is that it isn't always clear over there which lists are being referred to, as the terms "lists of basic topics" and "lists of topics" can stand for the pages which have those phrases as their names, or can be interpretted directly as the entire sets of those lists. It is even more confusing when those statements are linkified.
2. With respect to the math list featured review, we should wait until after the guideline contradiction is clarified, because at this moment it is not entirely clear what constitutes a self-reference and what does not.
3. Keep in mind that I have never asserted ownership to the basic lists, by name or deed. I am the primary developer, it is true, only because very few people besides me have worked on them. I have always welcomed others to join in on the fun, and have undertaken a massive recruiting drive to attract more editors to these lists, because they are far too much for one person to handle. For perspective, Britannica's Propædia took a large team over 8 years to complete, and Wikipedia is much larger.
4. Concerning the geog list noms, there is nothing incomprehensible about them - Quiddity seems to be overreacting - the reasons for those nominations are clearly presented in their opening statements. The geog list nom was submitted without references because it wasn't clear that sources were truly needed for that type of list, and I wanted feedback on that issue - should an exception be made for this type of list with respect to FLC's sourcing requirement? - no clear consensus was reached in that discussion. The geog list renom was made because the closing of the nom as "failed" seemed inappropriate (5 supports vs 2 opposes, and was closed by one of the opposers), and upon being requested to undo the closing the closer suggested a renom. The continued discussion clarified some issues and was very helpful, generating more specific feedback. By the way, because of it, the term "basic geography" was discovered to return about 37,000 hits on Google, so it appears to be a notable topic out there in the real world. If the renomination hadn't taken place, I might never have thought of looking. I've been able to source one of the sections of the list so far, and when I find more time, will likely be able to track down sources for the rest of the list. But I'm overdue for a wikibreak.  :-) That Quiddity interprets these noms as poor editorship is an example of how judgemental and overly critical he can be. The Transhumanist 07:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
5. In light of the possibility of developing "basic" topics such as "basic geometry" and "basic history" as encyclopedic subjects, moving the various basic topic lists to portal space at this time is premature.

I hope this has helped clarified the current situation. The Transhumanist    18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

1a. Please notify anyone whose feedback you still need then, because:

1b. there is agreement at Wikipedia talk:Contents that the 4 index pages do not belong in mainspace, by Prodego, Rbellin, Moe Epsilon, W.Marsh, The Placebo Effect, Scott5114, Phoenix 15, Dbachmann, GUllman, Carcharoth, and myself, and implied support from Coredesat's AfD. Only yourself and Phoebe oppose the idea. Not that I'm counting!

1c. Your reply to GUllman is the first comment to mention any specific list of basic lists, and the only other mention thereafter is your comment at the end, beginning "Then there's the issue...". So there should not be any confusion for any of the aforementioned participants.

4. That was hyperbole and I regret it. I do believe that article needs actual references though, but many of the editors that responded at the FLC shared my concerns, so I won't repeat them here. --Quiddity (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Has the idea of a List namespace ever been considered?

It occurred to me that this might be possible, even if not necessarily a good idea. What are your thoughts on the benefits and drawbacks of this?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Last 2 discussions were [3] and [4]. See also the thread following. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Index lists - RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists, a complex issue which I've tried to summarize. It concerns 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) 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's basically a proposal to move lists of lists out of article space, and would significantly affect Wikipedia's list guidelines (see Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Your input is needed to analyze the benefits of and problems caused by doing this. The Transhumanist    21:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of lists

Say a list is broken out of a main article. such as List of low-cost carriers. Is it realistic to expect the list article has to prove WP:N completely independently of the article on low-cost carriers, Or is the notability assumed or inherited from the main article? (Or some middle-ground, like a lower notability threshold if the main article sufficiently asserts notability?) If it has to be proved, how would you do it in an article like that? Torc2 (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been concerned about this issue myself. WP:N fails to take WP:SS into account; subarticles, especially lists, get split off to keep the main article from being overlong, then get deleted due to not satisfying the current language of WP:N. It's a Procrustean bed situation, and it presents a very real danger to our ability to present any subject in greater depth than 50k worth of text.

I would favor a rewriting of WP:N to take Wikipedia:Article series into account, though at this time, I don't know how to approach it. I know it's a problem but don't yet know the solution.--Father Goose 22:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

List Length

What is the preferred length for a list? I know that for prose articles its usually best to split up large articles if they become difficult to work with. Does the same hold true for lists? For example, List_of_fictional_United_States_Presidents is a huge list >170 kb in length. I have suggested splitting it up by various sections of the alphabet. But some others do not agree citing other examples of lists being split up resulting in bad lists. Is there any consensus or precedent on this? will381796 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical should be the last resort for subdividing a list. I would reorganize the Presidents list by fictional medium/genre/work, not by fictional character, and then split into "in movies", "in television", and "in literature & other".--Father Goose 22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, last resort for subdividing a list like this. I agree - in movies, television, etc is the way to go here. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, there is the ongoing project that resulted in this Afd: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Philippine_actresses. I think there needs to be some sort if method for splitting such lists or some sort of size limit for lists...can you imagine what a list of Bollywood or American actors would look like? --Kickstart70TC 01:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of List Guidelines

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities in Germany starting with S and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rivers of India for more examples of the gross abuse of these List guidelines by deletionists who seem to never waver in their attempts to delete lists. These deletion attempts might be better treated as vandal blanking than anything else; they just waste time of editors who would otherwise be trying to improve WP. Could improvements be made in the List Guidelines to stomp on such attempts faster and easier? Hmains 05:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. Somebody AfD'd one letter out of an article series due to notability? This has totally gotten out of control. Torc2 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What changes would we need to make to WP:Notability that would make it aware of the existence (and worthiness) of list articles?--Father Goose 07:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's as simple as inserting a line that says sub-articles (including lists and articles that are split off from main articles due to size) are still considered part of the content of the main article, so any AfD considerations due to WP:N or similar rules must consider the articles as one. In other words, notability doesn't have to be reproven for list articles as long as they are clearly derived from an article that already does satisfy WP:N. Lists and sub-articles would be judged in AfD more leniently due to WP:NNC, because we'd be acknowledging that these really are just a part of a larger article instead of something to be viewed and judged in complete isolation. (Another implication of this is that sub-articles should be allowed to use only primary sources if there are already substantial secondary sources in the main article.) They still wouldn't be able to use OR, but it should be sufficient, for example, for a list characters in a TV show to be entirely derived from the show itself without worrying about WP:N. Torc2 09:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Somebody AfD'd one letter out of an article series due to notability? This has totally gotten out of control." This illustrates why I rarely get involved in list discussions anymore because of the near-psychotic nature of some spam fighters. This is not a personal attack. It is a generalization about some spam fighters. They are destroying many longstanding wikipedia pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Surgery for this page

I think it makes sense to do some surgery to this page: basically moving all of the content that applies only to stand-alone lists to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), and all of the content that applies only to embedded lists to Wikipedia:Lists (embedded lists). What would be left is only the material that applies to both (like the section on how to format lists), as well as an intro. that distinguishes between the two list types and directs the reader to either page as appropriate. Thoughts/reactions? UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Are lists that are split off from main articles only due to size problems considered stand-alone or embedded? Torc2 (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Stand alone. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a huge mistake and totally counterproductive. Torc2 (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you elaborate a little more? Thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Lists (or any sub-articles) that are split off from main articles due to length are functionally part of that main article, not a distinct subject to be viewed in absolute isolation. It's really a failure on Wikipedia to recognize that. For some reason, some editors insist that forking information means the forks are completely separate topics, rather than conceding that sub-articles and split articles are just a pragmatic way to organize information on a single topic. It's really kind of ridiculous to expect something like List of drugs: K to assert its notability without depending whatsoever on List of drugs. Likewise, it's madness to separate off a list of episodes or list of characters from the main article on the TV show, and then expect the list to be fully self-sufficient, assert its own notability, and not to rely mostly on primary sources, and then to delete the sub-article if/when it doesn't do all this. It's not supposed to be a stand-alone article; it's just part of the main article on a separate page. Torc2 (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the idea of moving all information about only to one type of list in its respective style guide page. A small amount of introductory information should remain in this general guide, and direct the reader to the more specific guide. I find Torc2's objections irrelevant to the issue. Those objections pertain only to the question of when lists should be considered stand-alone. That is a separate issue. The concept of a distinction is already established, and there are already specific guides for stand-alone lists and embedded lists.

List of Cuban Americans

Hey. First off, my apologies if this is posted in the wrong place. There's been a sizable edit war going on over at Talk:List of Cuban Americans between two editors regarding the inclusion of non-notable names, and adding people multiple times (e.g. adding a director/actor into the sections on directing and acting). I gave a third opinion there, but it doesn't seem to have quelled the fires. Is there a way to get a ruling on this sort of thing based on Wikipedia policy? Can some people from here go over and comment on there? I'm just looking to put an end to their edit war, so really any sort of advice would be helpful. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason at all the list should contain non-notable names, and the rule to cite for this is probably WP:NOT#DIR, though WP:NOT#OR and possibly WP:NOT#MEMORIAL might apply too. The simple solution to getting non-notable names off the list is to challenge whether they're really Cuban-American and demand a secondary source that meets WP:V requirements. If they're not notable, they probably won't be able to be verified, and then they can be removed. You probably need to take this to WP:RFC though to get more eyes on the article. Torc2 (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. There's an open RFC for the page, but like most RFCs, it's not getting any responses. What about listing a name multiple times - is there any sort of Wiki ruling on that? Surely this issue has come up before... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Article space, portal space, list space.

In a previous section I saw a discussion about moving lists to various spaces. I think discussions about lists should be here, not buried in obscure village pump pages, user pages, notice boards, etc.. This is the talk page for list guidelines and decisions.

There shouldn't be votes taken from obscure discussions. I am against anything that lessens the access of lists to more readers. Otherwise the lists will not be maintained well. It takes a lot of drive-by editors from the hundreds of millions of wikipedia readers to keep up the millions of wikipedia pages and lists. Especially lists.

I also discuss things more here:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 14#Index lists and primary sourcing --Timeshifter (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Primary sourcing for list entries.

In many lists some fanatic spam-fighters are destroying longstanding wikipedia lists by deleting the vast majority of list entries on list pages because many of the list entries use primary sourcing.

Why are lists treated any differently from articles? In articles the topic must be notable. But every fact in the article does not have to be notable. Many facts in articles are not notable. The individual facts in articles often come from info buried in obscure journals, and are hardly notable in themselves.

Some info isn't referenced at all, since it is self-evident. Wikipedia requires sourcing for info that is not self-evident. Primary sourcing is acceptable for some uncontroversial info. Many list entries are uncontroversial. The primary sourcing is all that is needed. Spam fighters delete the primary sourcing, and then say the list entry is not sourced. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

List entries are not spam.

A single link.

Instead of some fanatic spam fighters destroying many longstanding wikipedia pages in their efforts to block single links for list entries on a list page, they should solve the main problem of spam in the external links sections of articles. That is where multiple spam links are added. See my discussion at

• MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/12#www.sbmkpm.com.2Fgraph.html

I point out there that the simple solution is to push for the elimination of the right of unregistered users to add links to the external links sections of articles. That is where the vast majority of multiple linking occurs.

A single primary-source link is used for a list entry without a separate wikipedia page. It is the same single primary-source link used on separate blue-linked pages put on lists. Either way it is still only one link total to the primary source.

A single link. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)