Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists/Archive 9

It's based on

WP:COMMONSENSE of course. Not everything every page here says has be derived from previously stated policy, or there wouldn't be anything here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

 ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

So such a claim is not based on fact but on what's assumed to be true. I'm not sure that should be there if it might not be the actual case. I've personally come across several FLs that contain unlinked entries, but I wouldn't claim many or most lists include unlinked items without randomly sampling a sizable amount of FLs. That blanket statement also doesn't take into account the variety of FL topics.

talk

) 04:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following what you're getting at here. What claim does "such a claim" refer to? What facts and assumptions are you talking about? What "blanket statement"? The pointed question '"Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgement" (is that based on a calculation?)' does not compute to begin with, since "many" is not a calculated figure, but simply "more than a few"; your own statement 'I've personally come across several FLs that contain unlinked entries' confirms the very point. You appear to be conflating WP:Notability with encyclopedic relevance in a list, when half the point of this entire discussion is that these are distinct concerns. Etc. I don't see any need to completely pick this apart. Please just state what your issue is more cogently.

PS: I agree that there is no reason for these to be numbered, and that doing so is misleading.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: None of these lists are numbered now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Why to not get too detailed here

I'm skeptical we can reasonably get much more detailed than something like the redraft I suggested above. The possible inclusion criteria vary too widely by topic and even subtopic. "Recognized by some list of acceptable, external, authoritative sources", if you will, is (in one form or another) a common version of CSC3. We might want to articulate this in the guideline, without being prescriptive. It works where the "group" is defined as the external authorities define it, the authorities accepted are actually the reasonable ones to accept, and no notable cases are rejected by all of these authorities. These two examples illustrate why/how this sometimes does and does not work, and someone who was not a subject-matter expert wouldn't be able to predict it by the topic:

1. It's possible for
   WP:GNG as a criterion at List of horse breeds
   and even its sublists.
2. Some
   WP:CUEBIOS
   ).

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the statement that "most lists should not seek to be exhaustive" is wrong. At best, it varies so much by subject area that the statement is meaningless; at worst, it discourages people from doing good work. I agree that most lists of people from geographic areas or involved in a given, broad occupations should not seek to be exhaustive. However, most lists of animal types should. All lists of books by an author/paintings by painters/buildings by architects/compositions by composers/creations by creators should. All lists of people who held a specified office should. All lists of public agencies should. All lists of geographic places should. And so forth: we could probably come up with a hundred examples of lists that ought to be completed.

In general, I don't think that this approach will help. If we still have people making up a "must be a blue link" rule, then we should solve that problem. We will not solve that problem by putting more vague principles on the page. We will solve it by directly acknowledging that this rule does exist and is actually used in very rare circumstances (almost always a list of people that could have many thousands of entries), but that it is not a mandatory criterion for all lists (and not even for all lists of BLPs). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

We can probably get at that with further revision. "Many lists should not seek to be exhaustive" is one step in that direction. But lists are inanimate and can't "seek" to be anything. So how about, "For many lists, it is impractical for them to be exhaustive". The Norwegian musicians example illustrates this clearly, while the species one illustrates your point clearly. Part of what I'm getting at in "my version" above is, as you say, solving the problem of people making up a "must be a blue link" rule. Per criterion type #2, obviously for many lists there shouldn't be many links at all. Anyway, it's stuff to think and talk about.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anybody disputes these examples (animals, geographic places, discographies, etc.) My perception is that those sorts of lists, though many, still constitute a minority of possible list topics that someone would be consulting this guideline about. But maybe it would be better to say, instead of "most lists should not seek to be exhaustive," "only certain types of lists should seek to be exhaustive"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, “only certain types of lists should be exhaustive; for instance: …” or something along those lines? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Works for me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I note that 67.14.236.50 has added this paragraph to the guideline:

As

common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking

list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.

I'm going to hold off reverting for now in the hope of this being worked out, but please note my objection in the section above to the "While notability is often a criterion [...] required in establishing criteria for a list" part. I think the specific examples need to flesh out why those are representative examples, too. Maybe it would be better for examples to accompany each of the three points rather than in the overview? If nobody else has proposed another version by tomorrow night I'll take a crack at it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I know it’s not ideal yet, but it seemed to me that the page would be better off with that paragraph than it was without. I have no objections to anyone editing it in any way they deem fit, including if you disagree with the preceding sentence. I hope it’s an improvement, but please do improve it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

We need that information somewhere, and we also need this to have a lead that gets some of the main points across. Whether every detail of that needs to be in the lead isn't certain, but if not, it needs to be moved to a section, not removed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

An RfC at

I hope the admins don't mind some criticism here, but I somewhat disagree with the peoplelist policy, specifically for radio and television stations. As long as their names are featured on the company's website, they should be included in the article as well, even if they don't have their own article. An incomplete list of anchors looks atrocious. Either have a complete list, or no list at all. MikeM2011 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

butthat's exactly what the station's own website is for. The principle at issue is NOT DIRECTORY. They provide the information they think appropriate, we provide encyclopedic information. As a general rule, anything that's really appropriate or an organization's website, is very likely not to be suitable for WP. Each source of information has its own very diffeent purposes. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

What about for former talent? MikeM2011 (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What about it? If a station formerly hosted WP:notable talent, you can list them as "Former host".--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Would be moved to "History" subsection though. The rest of the article should be "current." Student7 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In the process of reviewing the ALA Guide to Reference for inclusion of the material in it in the various Bibliography of encyclopedias pages, I find one of the listed items in the guide is in fact a series of "historical dictionaries" relevant to a specific geographical area, with a link included to indicate which all books are specifically included in that grouping, which is, as the source indicates, published as a "series" of works under a common group name. I know that there is at least one other similar collective inclusion in one of the other subpages of the GtR, although I haven't gotten to that page itself yet.

Would it be more appropriate to add only the series title, which is the only one specifically mentioned in the ALA source, in the place of the works, or would it be acceptable to include all the works named individually, using the reference to the series title and the link to the publisher's series in the description of that item in the GtR, as sufficient grounds for including them all individually, or should I do something else? John Carter (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, you're asking us? Shouldn't it be the other way 'round?

I'll start with the obvious, which you have already thought of: "Encyclopedia Britannica A-Ba" etc. should probably listed as "EB 1993" or whatever. I'm guessing that these are differently named. Like "Life magazine:Ethiopia", "Life magazine:Greece". To me, omitting or shortening the "Life magazine" would be useful. I want to know that the series included "Ethiopia, Greece..." Just an opinion.Student7 (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm an inclusionist. More info is better, except when it's not. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've presented a proposal to change the name of this article to more accurately describe it's contents.

The question is, does this article fit the definition of a Wikipedia list, per Wikipedia's guidelines for a stand-alone list?

Please help sort out this issue at

Thank you. The Transhumanist 19:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A statement reads "It is generally expected that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, will not be supported by any type of reference, since plenty of good references exist at the article."

The problem here is that a verifying editor must go to the appropriate article and verify for herself that an apple is indeed a fruit. This isn't exactly like using Wikipedia to verify Wikipedia, which everyone agrees is wrong, but it is "clase enough" to be annoying to each individual editor who is forced to examine another article to verify an entry, when the person doing the changes could have used a

I think the sentence is bad policy and should be removed. What is "obvious" to one English speaker is not necessarily blinding obvious to another, whose first language, or even second, may well not be English. It is "blindingly obvious' that a tomato is a fruit? Is it "blindingly obvious" that the tomato plant is in the nightshade family? Why not just cite it when entered and get it over with? A lot of wasted energy otherwise. Student7 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. This sentence follows from

WP:OVERLINKING. It's a generality and assumed that yes some English speakers will not actually know it, but their experience is outweighed by the degradation of everyone's experience if we overlink everything. Dkriegls (talk to me!

) 06:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope you mean linking but I fear you mean over-citing. Lists, whether linked or not linked should always have a cite IMO. I don't know whether Bob Hope graduated from UCLA or not. A citation that says that would confirm the inclusion. The link does nothing (and no matter how closely one reads the article, Bob Hope's attending/graduating from UCLA will, most likely, not appear. This is why I discount links alone). I don't of a policy against overciting, meaning one cite for one list entry (or link, if notable). Student7 (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Where Bob Hope graduated from is not on the same level of extremely easily cited as Apple is a "fruit", or Bob Hope is a "name", or B is a "letter". Yes, I would consider a citation for the definition of every word on a page to be as obtuse and overly distracting as linking every word on the page. But as other editors have mentioned, if an idiot challenges a word or two, give in. But if an idiot starts citing everything, then no, don't let the page get ruined. The reasoning behind overlinking would also apply to over citing. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 15:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason we would not cite the inclusion of apples in

Another reason not to cite in cases like this is that being a fruit is a defining characteristic of an apple, and that better be the first thing mentioned in the lede of the article on Apple - in other words, finding a

Okay, I'll drop the apple argument.

What about notable people in Winter Park? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Park,_Florida&diff=693878671&oldid=693878245 Student7 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

All list items require intext citations demonstrating their relationship to that list:

WP:Source list; "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references)". With that said, tagging every item with a "citation needed" tag is excessive and unnecessary. One tag at the top of the list will do and not distract from the content. I just split the list of Winter Park people to its own page and added a verification needed tag to the top of the page. Dkriegls (talk to me!

) 13:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Texas Longhorns football series records is suitable for inclusion as a stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Specifically, the article presents issues of the interpretation and application of our notability and suitability guidelines to lists of sports statistics, The discussion may be found @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just noticed that this guideline does not include a definition of what a list is. Neither does Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists.

Some articles are misnamed lists, and this guideline does not provide a way to differentiate between regular articles and list articles.

What is a list?

Also, while list is a type of article, what is a non-list article called? "Regular article"? "Prose article"? "Standard article"?

Just wonderin'. The Transhumanist 19:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think that's kind of the point. They are all "articles", subject to all the criterion articles are subject to. A list is just a subset of article pages that have lists either embedded or stand alone. I think the shifting goal of trying to make all stand alone list pages have prose, including introductions, has blurred the that line quite a bit. While that may sound like a "I'll know it when I see it argument", your above proposal is honestly the first time I've run across any confusion. And even there, I think it's clear that Glossary of British ordnance terms is more accurate than list. If you have proposal for a definition beyond "articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list", I'd love to read it. But I'm not much motivated to "pin it down" so to speak. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly right. A "list article" is simply an article where the information is presented in listified format as opposed to one where the information is presented in some other format (such as prose sentence/paragraph format, or poetic riming couplets). Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Except, all list articles should include prose. At the very least, an introduction explaining the purpose of the list. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 02:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Many editors have been directed here by a vigilante, erythrophobic editor with administrator privileges after he/she deleted their entries claiming that this page forbids adding people/places/etc. to a list with an interwiki link only (or with an interwiki link plus any number of links to solid bios that this editor deems not reliable sources). I have not been able to find a hint of this in this guideline, but it may be several links away if it exists. For a recent example, in this editor's mind debatably notable and poorly-referenced

See current proposals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Proposals. Please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to propose some common sense guidelines for

• WP:GENREVERIFY (clarification of
  WP:VERIFY
  )
  • Music genres are almost always
    likely to be challenged
    . Exceptions may be made for high-level root genres like rock, pop, electronic, folk, etc.
  • Thus, all entries must be verifiable for exemplar subgenre articles like List of psychedelic pop artists, List of blues rock musicians, and List of trip hop artists.
  • "The source is in their respective articles" is not a valid rationale (
    WP:CIRCULAR
    ). If it is the case, then simply copy over the relevant source(s) to establish verifiability and notability.
• WP:EXPLICITGENRE (clarification of
  WP:SYNTH
  )
  • References must be explicit in saying that the artist belongs to a genre. For instance, a source that identifies the Beatles' Rubber Soul as "a folk rock album" does not mean that the Beatles count as a folk rock band.
  • Sources must directly support cited genres. When a source writes that a work "mixes experimental, rock, and jazz", it does not necessarily follow that it is a work of experimental, rock, and jazz. By the same token, if a source cites a work of pop music for using synthesizers prominently, this should not lead an editor to refer to the work as "synthpop" if not explicitly stated by the source.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Titles to several "List of Presidents of the United States by ..." have recently been changed (Presidents → presidents) citing

Should someone see it fit to revert, I'd appreciate it if you would link me to a discussion in which there was consensus to avoid citing sources if editors consider it to be [subjectively, of course] "obviously appropriate". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The section

If you are interested in bigger picture issue of timelines, please also see related discussion at WT:N, here. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• A "timeline of X" is simply a "history of X" presented in a graphic, listified format instead of a prose format... so, if an event would be deemed noteworthy enough to include in a prose History of X article, then it can be included on a timeline. The same sourcing requirements would apply... as would harder to define concepts, such as relevance (i.e. we must use editorial judgment to ask "is this event really worth mentioning.") The problem with graphic format timelines is that there is no way to distinguish the significance of events... events are presented with equal weight. With prose, however, we can give significant events more weight by spending more article space on them, and can give less significant events less weight by spending less article space on them (or not mentioning them at all). Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)0
• Repeating what I said at the AfD. Timelines can be
  WP:NOT
  , and is linked from it. WP:NOT is a valid policy on which to reject timeline articles. Here's why. The essay says a collection without distinctions is junk. Without criteria to create a timeline article, it is impossible to conduct a valid evaluation of any random news story mentioning the timeline's subject in order to either include the event in the timeline or reject it. It becomes an indiscriminate matter of taste or attention of anyone who approaches the timeline article. They will become poor coatracks for any random thought someone has about the company they cover. This fits the essay description "assembled without care or making distinctions" perfectly. So the timeline needs more than just a subject; it also needs tight criteria for which to choose a point on the timeline. Otherwise it slides into subjective OR/SYNTH or a venue for worse WP:ADVERT and other nefarious stuff on Wikipedia.

List of long-distance motorcycle riders in conjunction with Template:Long distance motorcycling are a related project I and another core editor have been maintaining for a while. The list really constitutes more of a timeline per these articles we've been considering, and I think it's a good example of why strict criteria are required. Every Tom, Dick and Harry wants his epic ride listed here. But we can fall back on the mileage criteria to exclude things from the template, and fairly strict notability criteria for the list. It happens to have different criteria for different eras. - Bri (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Whether to include something in a timeline doesn't seem like a very different question than whether to include something in a history section of an article. Unlike a typical "list of..." the content is an inter-related flow rather than grouping of things in a given category or with a given property. Hence you can't expect the inclusion criteria to work the same way. There is something between OR/whimsy and quasi-calculable inclusion criteria: the same basic content policies on which we base decisions regarding what to include in an article. Sometimes people add OR-based content to a history article, then someone else can challenge whether it seems like a significant aspect of the subject such that it should be included (
  WP:WEIGHT and whatnot). — Rhododendrites ^talk
  \\ 18:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• A general rule of thumb is that if x is notable enough for an article, then "timeline of x" is presumed notable too. For many subjects a chronological treatment is inappropriate, but a chronology is still useful. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That is a selection criterion which guarantees making duplicate articles throughout WP, and they are likely to become forks. Our principle of making one article only for each topic has so far been quite successful (I'm actually surprised we have been able to maintain it as well as we have). As mentioned earlier, a timeline cannot be provided with explanations, and as applied here, usually doesn't have specific references. It puts everything at the same level of importance. It should be seen a special device for groups of articles: for example, as a summary of a long series of historical events, as for for a country, where the key items to be included are something as obvious as monarchs, ministries and wars. They can serve as two roles: a method of orientation, perhaps in a second window, while reading the articles. They have a special role for complex fictions, where the events in the successive works of the fiction appeared in a different sequence than the events in the imagined universe. They aren't needed if there is a single straightforward article. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This text seems misleading:

A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group.

I've seen this many times referenced to imply that companies and organizations have a sort of privilege/priority/exception in relation to other sorts of subjects when it comes to inclusion in a list, such that they do not have to be notable. In fact, for nearly all subjects, there's no absolute requirement of notability to include in a list. In my experience, other than for lists of people, lists of companies are at least as likely -- and probably more likely, given COI/paid editing issues -- as other subjects to require notability to include.

My guess is that it's there to play off of the immediately preceding explanation that lists of people should contain only notable members, but the two are in separate headings (on equal heading levels), so it appears to be separate.

As these all fall under "Appropriate topics for lists" rather than what's fit for inclusion, and as I don't think this means that companies/organizations are to be treated more permissively than all of the other unnamed non-person subjects, it seems like the entire subsection about companies should just be excised as out of place and misleading. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This guideline is clear as to how to determine what goes on a list, but how you know if the list itself is notable? What is a valid reason for deleting a list?--Mr. Guye (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to propose creating a category in the Style guide to address the selection and description of Feature columns in List of... and Comparison of... articles.

Consider this counter-example of a problematic article: Comparison of web conferencing software In the referenced article, many Feature columns do not have an explanation, making it impossible to determine whether checkmarks are given using the same criteria for each list entry, or whether each contributing editor uses the same criteria. Lacking an explanation makes Feature columns impossible to interpret for the reader. e.g. What does 'Security Access' mean, and what is implied if a conferencing service has, or does not have it?

Proposed addition:

• Features
  • Any Feature may be tagged as unclear, and in need of definition.
  • Feature definitions may be footnoted below the table.
  • Feature definitions should be specific enough to prevent arguments about whether a list item deserves or does not deserve a checkmark for that feature.

-- User:slaurel (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)