Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists/Archive 7

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

There are a large number of lists at Category:Articles to be split that are an alphabetical listing of items e.g. List of populated places in Hungary. The clear solution is to split the list into separate articles, 1 per letter etc. e.g. List of arcade video games. To aid navigation, I added a navigation template (or Index if you prefer) to the bottom of the page. I noticed that an editor has now moved the template to near the top of the individual articles. I wondered if there was a clear preference for where the template should go. I am asking because it takes a lot of time to make a change and going forward, I would like to get it right. If there is, a preference, can it be included in a guideline and if so which one. Op47 (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick notes: For

WP:SIZE splits, we often try to do so as little as possible, ie. only splitting into 2 or 3 parts if that handles the size problem. Otherwise it is more difficult to watchlist, and more difficult for readers to search for items within a page. –Quiddity (talk

) 18:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Navigation at the top. Don't split. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

By the Elgins "Greetings this is Uncle Sam) A very appropriate song for any WAR. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.80.175.8 (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Does a "notability disputed" tag make sense on that list? Discussion at Talk:List of massacres in Germany; input very welcome.--cyclopia^speak! 21:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The article is unsourced.

p

22:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that nobody has mentioned

WP:LISTN yet. That is the policy that applies here. By that standard, even List of events named massacres has not yet proved that the list itself (as opposed to the individual entries) is notable: the only sources cited in the lead are the Oxford dictionary definitions of massacre (n.) and massacre (v.). For that matter, Massacre is poorly sourced. RockMagnetist (talk

) 00:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I added a reference to List of events named massacres, in part to illustrate what a proper source for a list looks like. Note that the citation is specifically of a chronology, i. e., a list - not the whole encyclopedia. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

See post at [1]. If you have any comments please post there. Eldumpo (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The article

This unqualified directory of companies in a location fails

linkspam. Duplicated by Category:Companies based in Nashville, Tennessee

.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm posting this here because the list does not have a talk page to determine what project might be interested, and nobody seems to edit the article enough to be concerned with notifying them. It seems to me that the various "list of companies in some place" lists that exist on Wikipedia would all be better off as categories. In this case in particular, the list isn't frequently maintained and attracts spammy external links, while a category would automatically update whenever a company page is categorized. I'd like to hear what this WikiProject thinks about it. Thanks! Ivanvector (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this seems better suited for categories than list articles. DonIago (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone removed the prod. I added some wikiproject banners and found some more categories for it. I have no opinion on whether there should be lists like this on Wikipedia, but there are - quite a few of them; so if you're considering taking this to AfD, you should probably look for AfD's on similar pages first. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The article appears to largely be a

inclusion criteria. DonIago (talk

) 17:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that lists should have selection criteria, that guideline is part of the Manual of Style. A more pertinent criterion for AfD's is

WP:LISTN. RockMagnetist (talk

) 17:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The ordinary inclusion criteria for any such list of companies is that the company must be notable. That's standard for any list of X where not every X that exists merits an article (people, books, etc.). The relevant guidelines are

WP:CLN; LISTN has little if any applicability to a standard index (i.e., navigational list of articles) such as this one, and indeed LISTN has more relevance to groups where the entries aren't individually notable (which is why we'd then look to notability for the group) or the indexing method is not standard or of particular significance to the subject (unlike the fact of where a company is based). postdlf (talk

) 17:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, are you suggesting the list should essentially be trimmed to those companies that are either linked internally or have a third-party source to establish their notability? Not that being linked internally guarantees notability, but it's a good starting point. DonIago (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. postdlf (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing all of this out, and I agree with the rationale for de-prodding. Another standard worth mentioning is

refspam. Ivanvector (talk

) 18:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, it's probably better to keep the companies in the list but replace the citation with a proper source. Ivanvector (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There could be a good reason for including non-notable companies in this particular list, though I'm not aware of one. At any rate, that's just a content issue to hash out through normal editing and discussion for each such list. postdlf (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've

boldly removed entries from the list that had no WP article and didn't seem to be cited to independent RS. The deleted entries have been placed on the talk page for consideration/rescue. --Mark viking (talk

) 19:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm admittedly not interested enough to look, but off the top of my head that sounds like a good edit. Bonus points for moving the entries to Talk instead of just deleting. DonIago (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@

HCA Holdings, Inc. RockMagnetist (talk

) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

From

recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." This is one of those lists. I think your mistake is in believing that LISTN is somehow the sole guardian against bad lists. postdlf (talk

) 22:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The following sentence is "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists". No, I don't think that LISTN is the sole guardian - actually, I am sometimes frustrated by the tendency of AfD's to focus on notability to the exclusion of all else - but I think it would be a mistake to use LISTPURP as an excuse to not bother looking for sources. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be deleted. Ideally, this should be turned into a list with prose...which most all wiki lists should be. So as not to be a simple directory. It is the ideal, but a minority of lists on Wikipedia currently meet this ideal. On city pages I think this type of list would make a great addendum to the description of the economy. i.e., descriptors about each section of the economy and how notable companies play a role in that sector. But deletion should be avoided because the major companies of most cites have been discussed as a set by at least one business journal. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 09:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've archived some threads which were inactive and essentially links to discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I am working on some countries supermarket chains list, however it looks that there are much more retailers than supermarkets, so I suggest to change supermarket chain list to retailer list per country and sort them in categories like in List of supermarket chains in Lithuania.

Can it be done this way? Andriusk (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no rule against it. But I'm not sure there is much use for such lists. Although I am not a fan, I would suggest expanding the information offered in the tables. Maybe things like date they entered the country, goods offered, etc. Also, any store without a Wikipedia page needs a source establishing WP:Notability, otherwise it should be deleted. And references should be its own column. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Sports in Alaska where we are discussing the needs of referencing and that list. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just created and put the

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

Is here:

Parts of the table in List of circulating currencies are pure nonsense in their present form. Please see the Talk page there. --Thnidu (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just significantly expanded Lists of ports, a list of lists article. It would benefit from someone more knowledgeable than me taking a look at formatting and structure, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope you added it to list of lists of lists. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC).
 Done

I asked over at WP:WP Business

"Should we, perhaps, have a category for lists of subsidiaries/associates? "

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC).

Please see the RfC at Category talk:Filmographies#Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards, which relates to a number of FLs past, current and future. Comments are welcome there. – SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to know if it would be appropriate to start a task force dedicated to managing/deleting lists that don't meet criteria. I bring this up because there is some debate about transit route-related lists, and my personal goal is to try to gain consistency on Wikipedia. The idea is this: The task force would check lists that violate such policies as

Doesn't look like there is much jump on this. Perhaps if you put a list together of lists you think might qualify for deletion and we just discuss it here. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_American_women's_firsts#Proposed_lede. Thanks. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• List of state protected Monuments in Telangana
• List of state protected Monuments in Andhra Pradesh

Dear members of this project, please take a look of these above mentioned articles and their history. The Telangana article seems to have been copied from the Andhra Pradesh article alongwith from ASI website as noted and tagged by CorenSearchBot in this edit. User:Vin09, who created the Telangana one had possibly ripped info from Andhra Pradesh for the Telangana one. Editors could please check if the Telangana one or the concerned user has flouted any guideline. One more aspect is ever since the creation of new state, Telangana, more such lists could be in the offing. Please keep an eye to ensure the articles are neutral. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)^(Support) 23:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the problem seems more nuance than that as several of the sites listed on the citation for Andhra Pradesh sites are now with the new state of Telangana which split from there this year. Fortunately, the citation lists each site by district so the Wiki lists have done a good job splitting the lists by which district each state now controls. So I don't see the problem. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 02:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless, are you suggesting these monuments no longer have state protection since the split?--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 02:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You may need to give ids for monuments. Otherwise it will be difficult for WLM-- naveenpf (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give the ASI monument numbers and improve it.--Vin09 (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've spent a little time editing List of viscountcies in the peerages of Britain and Ireland and at some point would be looking to nominate it for FL status. I know there a few issues with referencing all the listed peerages still, but input would be much appreciated (especially regarding the lead and the format/layout of the list). I've start a peer review request here. Thanks! Sotakeit (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Suddenly a raft of less important Grammy Awards templates are being created. Please join the discussion at

What's the deal with the various '(YEAR) in (COUNTRY)' lists, such as 2014 in Malaysia? I happened upon that one since it had ambiguous links. It has no named selection criteria, and its lead section is literally just the article title. Other similar pages have one-sentence leads often unrelated to other content (e.g. 2013 in Malaysia: "2013 was the 50th anniversary of Malaysia's formation."). As far as I can tell, the de facto inclusion criteria are "things that happened that at least one Wikipedian took note of". Searching a bit, I see that neither 2013 in Belgium nor 2014 in South Africa has any lead section, and apparently have the same inclusion (non)criteria. At least all the events on 2014 in South Africa cite sources, which is not true of the other pages I looked at. Is there some project or task force dealing with these? Cnilep (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so; maybe

WP:RY, but there's no comparable guideline for the "2014 in [country]" articles, nor (as far as I know) for all the others – "2014 in sports/film/literature/etc." I suspect there's little outside interest in these articles, though, so it might be hard to get enough community input to knock together some new guidelines. DoctorKubla (talk

) 10:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of mottos

The article List of mottos has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

'This is a just a random list of stuff that fails WP:NOT:

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information

.'

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

Are there standards as to what lists should be created and what should be deleted? An editor recently created List of Toronto recreation centres, and none of these are links. Would this be a candidate for deletion? Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

All the same criterion apply as for an article (see:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists). As this page stands, it is not notable and is only citing a single primary source. However, I would imagine many of these centers have been talked about in Toronto papers or news programs. It is possible with work this list could become acceptable. --Dkriegls (talk to me!

) 04:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a RfC at the talk page at

Just to be clear on how the above referenced (pun not intended) RfC came to pass recently, please see the related discussion that's ongoing at AN/I. Guy1890 (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So....all that to conclude blanking a list is not a good faith move? Or did I miss something in my "scan" of the debate? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 03:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor is now blanking other articles and lists in the porn genre. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• The above-mentioned RfC is closed, but there is still some apparent difficultly in implementing that close (if needed) in this discussion here. Commentary from members of this Project might be helpful at this time to define a best way forward. Guy1890 (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)