Wikipedia talk:List guideline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

• Archive01

Related archives

• Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 1
• Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 2

[edit] List of lists

Some lists refer to sublists that already have their own main articles. In these cases, should only the link to the separate sublist be given, to avoid redundancy? Shawnc 17:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Items to be Included in Lists?

I know that this is a somewhat vague headline, but I'm not really sure how to be more specific in a few words. I basically have two questions, both of which relate specifically to the current list of U.S. radio programs, although I think that they may also apply elsewhere.

One - The simpler question. Should all items which qualify for inclusion on the list and already have their own pages in wikipedia be included on the list or not?

Two - The harder question. I note that there was a radio program on the Blue Beetle for one season in 1940, and that that radio program is mentioned in passing on the Blue Beetle page. Should such items, which would not qualify as significant in their own right, be included on the list for the sake of completeness? If the concensus is "yes", I will do my best to go about finding all such "buried" items and doing the minimal revision of existing pages required to list the full name of the show and include them on the list mentioned above.Badbilltucker 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

Added important aspects about criteria for inclusion in lists, that are inline with content policies of WP (V, NPOV, NOR and NOT) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multi-columned lists

Would it be appropriate to have a section in this guideline showing how to make two column (or more) lists? I couldn't find anything in WP explaining how to do that. There are a few ways, including divs and {{Col-begin}}.--Commander Keane 05:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Complete-list}}

I rashly added the text below to the project page at the section, #Boilerplate text. It has rightly been brought to my attention that it may violate WP:Self. If so, then does {{Incomplete-list}} also violate WP:Self? Can anyone suggest a solution? —Markles 12:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

{{Complete-list}}

Incomplete-list is more of a clean-up tag, which are approved for use on the article namespace. A better notice would be something like <!--- This list is complete. Do not add or remove any items from this list. ---> added to the section text instead of adding the template. The message would only need to be seen by someone editing the article, as opposed to clean up tags which point out things that can be missed by both editor and reader. -- Ned Scott 13:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

An example of this can be seen on Canada [1]. -- Ned Scott 14:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've tried using the "<!-- This list is complete… -->" note, but since it's only visible in the editor, well-intentioned but incorrect users nonetheless go in and edit the list anyway, perhaps ignoring the note or by section-editing. Maybe a smaller Complete list template could be used?—Markles 15:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed racist paragraph

• I've removed the following paragraph from the guideline:

:* Identitarian lists are another example where POV may often be incorporated. For example, on List of Jewish jurists and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers some editors add names to these lists out of a kind of self-affirmation. To put it frankly, editors who are themselves, Jewish, born-again, or LGBT (or otherwise wish to affirm the value of those qualities), feel comforted by adding names of famous and respected people to their List of people like me. In these types of examples, membership in the adjectival category is both contextual and often not obvious.

• I'm shocked that this statement singling out members of minority religions/sexual orientations has stood unchallenged for the last month. The guideline is pseudo-wikipedia policy. It should not be used to cast aspersions on specific groups (as if Jews and gays were the only groups that enjoy "self-affirmation"). --JJay 14:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not change Wikipedia guidelines without first gathering concensus. I will add a dispute tag to the section, but I will also revert your edit. --Zsinj^Talk 14:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• The paragraph was added last month. Please point me to the discussion that established consensus for its addition. --JJay 14:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I found when it was added. And I found the section on this page where concensus was reached. --Zsinj^Talk 14:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• The talk page discussion you are pointing to does not even mention the paragraph. Furthermore, there was no real discussion; No consensus was reached for its addition. --JJay 14:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And I quote from above, "Excercise good editorial judgement in lists dealing with controversial subjects: For example, if there is only a single source that describes the item to belogning in a list, that may not be a valid reason for inclusion, as it can the a minority POV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)". Also, Jossi had Dpbsmith append to (which assumes approval) and Garion96 agree with this. --Zsinj^Talk 14:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If you disagree with the inclusion of this, why not try to contact User:Jossi and figure out where your opinions differ? --Zsinj^Talk 14:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• The paragraph I removed was added prior to the discussion you are referring to. It was not discussed in that discussion. Only one editor voiced any type of approval. There was no discussion or consensus. The page as it stands is functioning as an attack page against Jews and gays. If we added blacks to the statement we would have the racist trifecta in all its glory. That is against wikipedia ploicies and can not stand. --JJay 14:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • By calling the section an "attack," you lose me. It simply says "people adding names to lists that don't belong, out of their own comfort, shouldn't." --Zsinj^Talk 14:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • For the record, I am Jewish and I was the one that added this paragraph with the assistance and discussion from other editors. I would argue that you may be to sensitive as this paragraph has nothing in it that mey be costrued and "racist". Rather than deleting, discuss here. I am restoring this for now.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a guideline, not an article, and is consisted of ideas that incur seggestions to editors when editing pertaining to the subject the guideline is about. That's what policies and guidelines all are: Original Research backed up by the concensus of others. --Zsinj^Talk 15:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• First, it was already restored. Second, it makes no difference to me what you are or claim to be. Wikipedia guidelines should not be singling out members of minority groups for criticism, whether Jews, blacks, gays, muslims, etc. The paragraph is full of unsubstantiated OR claims and is highly offensive. For example, how can we justify: "To put it frankly, editors who are themselves, Jewish, born-again, or LGBT...feel comforted by adding names" Do we have evidence that that is true- and more true for Jews and gays? Furthermore, there is no previous discussion on this page concerning this specific paragraph. If the underlying points in the paragraph need to be included in the guideline (which should be discussed), the points can surely be made without naming Jews and gays. -JJay 15:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • • Discussion is beginning. :-) How should it be phrased then? --Zsinj^Talk 15:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • For a start, every specific mention of a given religion, sexual orientation or other minority group needs to be cut (including the links). --JJay 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• That leaves us with, "Identitarian lists are another example where POV may often be incorporated. For example, on (removed #1) some editors add names to these lists out of a kind of self-affirmation. To put it frankly, editors who are themselves, (removed #2) (or otherwise wish to affirm the value of those qualities), feel comforted by adding names of famous and respected people to their List of people like me. In these types of examples, membership in the adjectival category is both contextual and often not obvious." --Zsinj^Talk 15:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• What should we put in the place of those names? More ambiguous terms such as "lists concerning controversial subjects" (for #1) and "members of the larger controversial group" (for #2)? --Zsinj^Talk 15:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I just made the paragraph generic, without examples. I may be harder to understand, but at least does not have the chance to offend anyone. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. :-) --Zsinj^Talk 15:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was in the midst of writing a long comment, when I saw the latest rewrite to the paragraph in question. I think I can live with the phrasing as it now stands. Good job. --JJay 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed additions to this guideline

There is a discussion concerning the list guideline which is taking place on another page, which really should be being held right here on the guideline's talk page. In an effort to centralize discussion concerning lists, I'm moving that discussion here. I've also integrated another ongoing discussion from this page, because it fits well in the hierarchy of discussions presented here, and brings discussion of two nearly identical topics together.

The case has been presented that there does not exist a detailed enough list of criteria for the eligibility of lists to reside on Wikipedia. The lack of specific qualifications has contributed to a great number of heated AfD deletion discussions and edit wars. A number of criteria and related issues have been proposed, and are presented under their own subheadings below. Please contribute to these discussions. Thank you. --Polar Deluge 16:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article worthy

The subject of the list must worthy enough for an article, or obviously and self-evidently related to another subject that deserves an article. One could write an article List of vegetables, because vegetables deserve an article. How about "list of legislative buildings by construction material" (brick, stone)? This cannot be a list because it is unreasonable to have an article called "Construction materials used in legislative buildings".

and...

A list is encyclopedic only if the topic of the list is encyclopedic. Hence:

1. A list should not be created unless it is directly related to an existing, established, non-stub article.
2. Lists should not be initially created as standalone articles. They should always be created as part of the existing article to which they relate. This facilitates oversight by editors with an interest in the topic of the list. Lists should only be broken out into standalone articles when their length becomes disproportionate to the rest of the article.

• Agree with the above (2nd one). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• I also agree (to the 2nd one). Especially the second and third addition seem very important. Garion96 ^(talk) 01:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree with both of the above proposals. Here's why:

1. The first proposal, as expressed by its example, would object to a "list of British billionaires" on the grounds that there shouldn't be an article titled "British billionaires". The guideline needs to be much more specific in how it applies to adjectival phrases, in order to prevent arguments. There are hundreds of lists already in existence for which the subject phrase in the title of the list would not make a good article. We would never have an article called "Chinese philosopher", or "Russian author", or "Blues genre", yet we have a list of each of these.
2. The second proposal ignores one of the oldest applications for lists on Wikipedia: that of forging ahead in areas that lack coverage on Wikipedia. Lists often list articles that don't exist yet. Similarly, lists themselves have not been restricted when a main article was not present. Most editors like to write and edit articles, while a minority seem to like to construct lists. There is no justification given above for hampering the latter group, which is already scarce on Wikipedia. If someone is motivated to forge ahead in a subject area with lists, even though there is no such effort underway in articles, we should still take full advantage of this editor's initiative. The lists he creates may prove to be useful reference aids in the creation of articles, including ones on the lists' main subjects. Such lists may make creating outlines for new articles all the easier. Wikipedia is built on the fragments constructed by those who come before. Don't throw away the building blocks of Wikipedia! The same applies to lists as standalone articles. Not all lists belong in articles, especially those which have no corresponding article. Should the article on inventions be required to have included in it all the lists started on regional inventors? (There's more than a few, with many more to come). Should the article Australia be the mandatory starting location for all the new pages that start with "List of Australian..."? Is there room in the Australia article for them all? Nope. And which article would you start the "List of Australian inventors" in? Inventions or Australia? Requiring that lists be started in articles is nuts, and is an unnecessary restraint on creativity. --Polar Deluge 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with both proposals. And I'd say "No more lists of Russian Authors, Chinese Philosophers, or blues songs shall be added, all existing shall be deleted" is a good solution to Polar Deluge's adjectivial phrases. In general, I support a rule of "No lists whatsoever". The Literate Engineer 09:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vastness and maintainability

The list must be sufficiently maintainable and not unmanagably vast Something like "List of human beings" or "North American companies" would be impossible to maintain.

• SUPER STRONG OBJECTION - I can't believe you are making the scale of an endeavor the issue here! Wikipedians don't get daunted by project size. Look at the size and scope of Wikipedia itself. If we applied the logic of this proposal to Wikipedia, there would be no Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an extremely vast collection of data, yet it is still manageable. By extension, that makes anything on Wikipedia also managable. There are some HUGE lists on Wikipedia, and these are managed just fine. There is nothing inherent in a list's potential size that makes it unmaintainable. We have the tools. We have an army of editors. "List of human beings" doesn't qualify because most humans themselves don't qualify under Wikipedia's notability requirements. And most North American companies aren't notable either. Also, Wikipedia isn't a directory. Because the examples given above do not apply, they don't illustrate what the proposal means. If a class of notable things exists in the world, then Wikipedia will most likely have a list of them eventually. Just because there are a lot of them, won't stop editors from creating the lists. Nor should it. Remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. As lists grow, they can be chopped into multiple pages, and divided into sublists, or both! General lists are great, because then the topics can be sorted from there into useful sublists. Take a look at how the lists supporting philosophy have been developed from each other, lists growing out of other lists, lists copied and filtered as a starting point for further lists, etc. Let lists grow organically, and Wikipedia's editors will find better ways and develop better tools to manage them, regardless of what size they are, and regardless of the scope of the topic of the list. --Polar Deluge 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• I have a question: why would you think a large list is unmanagable? You don't sort such lists by hand, do you? Even the command prompt of Windows has a sort command that is hundreds of times faster than sorting by hand. You need to explain what you mean by unmaintainable and unmanageable. What is the difficulty that you have experienced when working with large lists that makes you want to avoid them? Sorting? Spell-checking? Gathering new links? Removing duplicate entries? I really don't understand, as all of these have very fast methods which make even extremely large lists quite manageable. --Polar Deluge 04:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Commment: the key quality of lists that we need to judge them by is their relevance. Size matters not, and potential size especially matters not. And we already have a policy for determining relevance: Wikipedia:Notability. --Polar Deluge 04:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging lists

'The list is not able to be merged with another, either because of its size, the distinction of its subject or the illogicality of a merger As to the size, merging two rather similar lists would be improper if they were both very long. As to the "distinction of its subject", it would be improper to merge "African vocalists" with "African musicians", because the two are separate entities. As for the "illogicality of a merger", this is more for blatant examples, such as merging "Brands of hot dogs" with "Breeds of dogs".

• Question: You didn't actually research your examples, did you? Nowhere on Wikipedia are vocalists a seperate entity from musicians. There are no separate lists for vocalists, because throughout wikipedia they are already included (merged) into the lists of musicians. Also, lists of "singers" seem to have been disallowed. You've got to use relevant examples, otherwise they are nothing but bad examples, which will confuse readers of the policy who take a look at the examples you've pointed out. Though I do agree with your illogicality example. --Polar Deluge 03:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No trivia

The list must have a reasonable plausability of usefulness. A list may not contain mere trivia that can not be used in any reasonable circumstance

• I Object - what does "usefulness" and "use" mean here? This is way too vague. We're trying to develop guidelines that will actually help editors who are in deletion discussions easily discern what kind of list should be kept and what should be tossed. The above guideline will just leave them scratching their heads in confusion, or they will wind up arguing about interpretations of the guideline. What does the above guideline actually mean? And how can a page be tested against it? Shouldn't the term used here be "interest" or "notability"? See Wikipedia:Trivia and Wikipedia:Notability. --Polar Deluge 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No category substitutes

The list must not be containable in a category, either because of the number of red links that could be articles, the organization of entries not being alphabetical, or because of explanation needed beside each entry

• I highly object, as lists are much more versatile than categories, and can be made use of in ways that categories cannot. You can't cut and paste a category very easily (it's a real pain actually), while lists are a breeze to do this with, and are in this sense quite modular. I don't see redundancy with categories as a problem, but instead I see this as a benefit to Wikipedia.

1. First, lists are centralized link depots, categories are decentralized. You can't directly edit a category's membership, you have to go to each page to do this, but lists can be created and maintained on the spot on the page itself.
2. Second, a page's membership in a category is often opposed by its maintainer, who removes the category link from the page. I've run into this a lot, and it results in ommissions throughout the category system. Lists don't run into this problem, because lists don't modify any pages other than itself - it's links are non-intrusive, because it links to the page and not the other way around.
3. Third, when a page drops off a category (because someone removed its link or the page got deleted), there's no way to track this from the category. You have to either recognize that the page is missing, or (ironically) check an independent inventory list for that category. All changes to lists, on the other hand, are recorded in the list's edit history, while deleted pages show up as redlinks.
4. Fourth, list construction and development is an ongoing process, and just because a list doesn't have any extra features yet (like annotation), doesn't mean those can't or won't be added in the future. To delete a list because it isn't augmented, duplicates effort when someone is ready to make an augmented list - it's much easier to annotate an existing list than it is to rebuild that list all over again from scratch, which is exactly what is forced to happen when a list is deleted.
5. Fifth, with respect to reference tools, redundancy is a good thing. With lists and categories, if one subsystem doesn't have what you need, there's a complementary subsystem to check. And because of the nature of wikis, and its quirks, no system of classification is ever going to be complete (the ommissions problem previously mentioned), so having two overlapping categorization systems is actually quite helpful.

Way too many lists have been deleted by listkillers who are biased in favor of the category system. Unfortunately, the category system doesn't do a good job of replacing the list system as an indexing tool. We need to include a guideline that "because it duplicates a category" is not a valid reason to delete a list. --Polar Deluge 17:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No value judgements

Lists may not center around a subject that contains necessarily controversial value judgments. As mentioned in WP:LIST, one may not create a list called "List of really good authors" or "List of dictators", as these are value judgments that would draw obvious controversy. This does not, however, rule out lists of minorly subjective subjects that would only draw controversy over obvious and self-evidently improper entries. Controversial entries are demanded to have proper citation.

Also...

Avoid creating lists based on a value judgement of people or organizations. For example, a "List of obnoxious people" is clearly not acceptable, but more subtle examples could be a "List of demagogues", or "List of exploitative companies", or a "List of authoritarian leaders", as each one of these are based on value judgements even if these can pass the test of verifiability. However, it is inevitable that certain objective characterizations of things, or especially persons, will be considered either praise or condemnation by some readers. An editor need not (and cannot) generally find criteria about which no one makes a value judgement, but criteria, or inclusions/exclusions, should be done without regard to such value judgements.

I don't see any discussion about this recent addition. I think this is too vaguely worded to be useful, and the concept is already covered by WP:NPOV and by the new section Wikipedia:List guideline#Set clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria. -Will Beback 03:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed on a previous proposed guideline Wikipedia:Lists_in_Wikipedia and brought up from there. If the text is too vaguely worded, let's tighten it. I believe that it is a useful addition. What about this?:

Avoid creating lists based on a value judgement of people or organizations, even if these pass the test of verifiability. However, it may be inevitable that certain objective characterizations of things, or especially persons, will be considered either praise or condemnation by some readers.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Value judgments" is a vague term. Would "Subjective criteria" be a way of covering the same problems? -Will Beback 03:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That may work, although I'd prefer value judgement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See also what Princeton's webnet says about "value judgement": value judgment: an assessment that reveals more about the values of the person making the assessment than about the reality of what is assessed  :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"'Value judgment' is a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something..." I have never seen a list things that are right or things that are wrong. I can't see how this term helps us improve the project. If that is really what you mean then I think we should leave it out entirely. -Will Beback 04:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• This provision is a minefield and I suggest that it be removed. It would effect many lists that have survived AfD and which are entirely reasonable, such as list of dictators or list of groups referred to as cults. -Will Beback 17:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, my reason for including this was that, for one, it already is part of an existing guideline (here), and I want to exclude blatant and controversial subjectivism while keeping lists that require "value judgments", but are clearly and obviously so. This was inspired in part from an AfD argument on List of car flops. One user contended that the definition of "car flop" is inherently POV, and therefore was welcome as an article. I, however, felt that a "car flop" was straightforward and required no formal and exact definition, and any controversial entries could simply be explained within the list or removed. I still stand by that, and I simply see no reason to delete lists like that because of a remote chance for controversy. (That explains the wording of the criterion.) As for the "List of dictators", I realize that it is a contentious issue, but truth cannot always be achieved through consensus, and no matter how many Mussolini-loyalists there are, he still was a dictator. Of course, we can have a paragraph next to each entry describing the controversy. That's the beauty of a list. You are probably in agreement with me here, so perhaps instead of removing the list, we can rephrase it somehow to assert that logic reigns on Wikipedia. What do you think?

AdamBiswanger1 02:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Will, Dictator and "refered to as cult" are not value judgements. The former has a definition and the List of dictators states that definition as a criterion for inclusion. The latter is also not a value judgement as it is verifiable. Compare these with List of obnxious people (a no brainer) or with List of exploitative companies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I object to these 2 guidelines - value judgements are built-in to many descriptive terms, and describing the world is what we are supposed to be doing. As long as the description isn't POV, and is verifiable, it should be allowed. "Value judgement" is too vague. This criterion overlaps with POV and Verifiability, and those policies already cover this issue nicely. --Polar Deluge 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• (It took me a while to fidnt this discussion again). Polar Deluge describes the issue well. The concept that this addition is trying to cover is already inherent in existing polices, and is already covered by other parts of this guideline. This proposal is too vague to be helpful. -Will Beback 21:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• • The problem remains, even if we do not want to face it. A List of obnoxious people can be verifiable. Same with a List of authoritarian leaders, or List of exploitative companies, all of which are POV magnets. What would be the best way to address this concern? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The best way to address the addition of inappropriate entries on a list is the same way bad edits are addressed on any page. By editing them and by discussing them on the list's talk page. Let the consensus process work its magic. --Polar Deluge 08:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't use the name of a list to assert a certain POV

Avoid using the name of the list as a way to assert a certain POV. A "List of famous British people" asserts that the people in the list are famous. A better name could be "List of noted British people", or simpler "List of British people", as these will be listed only if they pass the Wikipedia:Notability test. Avoid using terms that are in dispute as the main descriptor for the list. For example, "List of pseudoscientists" may not be appropriate as the term itself is disputed. A better name in this case could be "List of people described as pseudoscientists".

• I object - This goes to descriptor again, and you are confusing POV presented in the title, with POV applied to whether someone is a member of a list. A descriptor is okay if it isn't POV and if it is verifiable, and it doesn't matter if it is abstract or subjective, as that applies at the member level, and not the list title level. And there are dozens of lists of famous people and things on Wikipedia. Famous people do exist, and are reported to exist in other sources, and so there is no reason why Wikipedia should not report them too. There are dozens of "famous" lists on Wikipedia already. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=List+of+famous&namespace=0 --Polar Deluge 19:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

":I can see that you object to all the proposals. Are you saying that you see no problems whatsoever with lists in Wikipedia? 15:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no problems in lists that these proposals would fix that are not already covered in existing Wikipedia policies. Nor do I see any problems with lists addressed here that regular articles don't have. Lists are articles. The problems you are addressing are the same ones that plague all of Wikipedia and which have already been addressed in its policies concerning all pages. The list guideline should only cover issues that pertain only to lists. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, nor reprint Wikipedia policy. Most of the policies referenced in this discussion were polished via consensus over a great deal of time by a great many editors and so are very well thought out and very well written. It would be a major undertaking to write redundant guidelines as well written as those policies, without of course copying them verbatim. Therefore, we shouldn't - such duplicates have a high probabiity of being scewed, biased, bent, warped, vague, confusing, misleading, and in error. We should rely on Wikipedia's already established bedrock policies. They apply the same to lists as to every other page on Wikpedia, and THEY DO NOT NEED TO BE PARAPHRASED FOR THIS GUIDELINE. Most of the proposals presented in this discussion are entirely redundant and are so poorly written that they could be interpretted in many different ways. Some are so vague and incoherent that I had to guess at what they meant. Most include examples that don't even portray the guideline they are representing. If these proposals were adopted, a great many valid lists would be subject to deletion. So I'm against all of them. My advice is to wipe the slate clean, and start over from scratch with an analysis of specific problem lists as test cases from which to identify list-specific problems and then develop editing solutions for those problems. When a solution has been tested successfully on a sufficient number of lists, then its inclusion in the guideline should be discussed on this talk page. --Polar Deluge 08:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Always include list membership criteria

To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion must comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is, if someone is listed as an X, that person must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source. Also be aware of original research when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted.

Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in 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 whom 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.

Keep this. It's very helpful.Universitytruth 14:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of it. It's instruction creep. To quote the instruction creep page: "Process is evil." We should keep the instructions short and simple. Everything in the above clause is already covered in existing policies, and isn't even written as well as those, making it somewhat more ambiguous (and confusing). Also, it recommends the wrong solution. "List of dog breeds" already has clear enough membership criteria that it doesn't need to be explained in any greater detail. The name of a list in most cases contains explicit criteria for membership - where it isn't explicit enough probably means that the list title should be changed so it is explicit. All lists are already subject to the policy on verifiability, therefore that policy doesn't need to be repeated on each and every list (which is what is implied above by "compliance", based on the example provided). What a waste of the reader's time. Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not already define acceptable article names and subjects for inclusion. And always beware instructions that include the word "always" (including this sentence).  :-) --Polar Deluge 07:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Amplification (note that Universitytruth is my former main account, now in retirement): I agree that "List of dog breeds" needs no further instructions. If you could share with us a clear, non-controversial definition of "philosopher," that would need no further discussion, that would be very useful for the various lists of philosophers. If you are unable to do that, I would submit that some unambiguous statement of membership criteria is helpful.--Anthony Krupp 12:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response to this question.--Anthony Krupp 13:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing?--Anthony Krupp 15:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Set clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria

Ensure that the criteria for inclusion in the list are neutral and based on widely accepted definitions of terms. Both clear criteria and adherence to these criteria must take priority over any praise or condemnation an editor may feel is implied by membership. Some lists cover characterizations that can be considered negative. Such lists, if not carefully maintained can be used to promote a certain POV. Opponents of a subject may attempt to include it in the list despite that it does not meet the list criteria; and conversely supporters may attempt to remove that it despite meeting the list criteria.

Identitarian lists are another example where POV may often be incorporated. For example, on List of Jewish jurists, List of born-again Christian laypeople, and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers some editors add names to these lists out of a kind of self-affirmation. To put it frankly, editors who are themselves, Jewish, born-again, or LGBT (or otherwise wish to affirm the value of those qualities), feel comforted by adding names of famous and respected people to their List of people like me. In these types of examples, membership in the adjectival category is both contextual and often not obvious.

• Attention: This was on the project page, having been cut and pasted from the draft "Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia", which never reached concensus, and so I've moved it here for further discussion. See Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 2 for previous discussion. --Polar Deluge 04:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• The two sections above (Always include membership criteria and Set clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria) were to me the most useful things on WP:LIST! I would very much like to see them back in the article. I'm still helping to develop a few lists, and I think that these sections contain excellent guidance.Universitytruth 14:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, except for the racist homophobic paragraph, that is. The first paragraph (from Ensure to criteria) is great. I see no value in the second one. Can we put the first one back and discuss the second one here (if necessary)?
    • I noted that the offensive paragraph above was edited into an acceptable form on the article page a few days ago, as follows:

"Identitarian lists, those lists related to religious affiliation, sexual identity, political affiliation, etc., are another example where POV may often be incorporated. Some editors add names to such lists out of a kind of self-affirmation, feeling comforted by adding names of famous and respected people to their List of people like me. In these types of examples, membership in the adjectival category is both contextual and often not obvious." Universitytruth 14:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did an older version get copied to this page? Perhaps that was inadvertant. No matter. How do people feel about this paragraph directly above? I think it's much less awful than the previous version. Universitytruth 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes a claim ("that some editors add names to such lists out of a kind of self-affirmation") that would take a mind reader to verify. How do you know what those editors were thinking? You talk about their comfort level and everything. Where did all these "facts" come from? --Polar Deluge 09:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

True; actually, I think the whole paragraph could go. My initial intent (as I wrote through my former primary account and now SP, universitytruth) was to just improve the paragraph. But as you say, it is still problematic. It can go, IMO.--Anthony Krupp 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists should generally only represent consensus opinion

The principle of Neutral Point of View, declares that we have to describe competing views without asserting any one in particular and that minority points of view should not be presented as if they were the majority point of view. When dealing with lists, this can become a challenge. If you include leader XYZ in List of dictators on the basis of a mention of XYZ being a dictator by one source, be sure to confirm that this is a widely held opinion, otherwise you will be in disregard of NPOV. Wikipedia:Reliable sources applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed.

For purposes of list inclusion, the most reliable source is the long-standing consensus of editors on the content article of the thing listed; the failure of a content article to support list inclusion criteria should be treated as prima facie evidence against its inclusion in the list. Transient or widely disputed characterizations on a content article should be treated with suspicion by list editors. List editors should also consider whether a characterization within a content article, even if long-standing, is presented as consensus opinion or as the position of a specific named external source; in the latter case, the citation to an external source is only as good as the external source is.

• I object - This is redundant - there's no need to reiterate WP:NPOV. Also, Wikipedia can't use itself for verification, because that violates WP:VER. --Polar Deluge 09:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Think of the reader

When creating new lists, think of the reader: Does the list add value? Is the list's criteria so open-ended as to welcome infinite results or abuse? Is there a category in Wikipedia already for the same subject? If so, could the list add something the category can't? Is there a reason for creating the list other than "it would be cool" or "just for the hell of it"? Lists should enhance the encyclopedic value of content rather than diminish it.

• I object - This is too obvious and just wastes space (and the time it takes to read). It also pertains to the Lists vs Category conflict, which is already posted above on this page as No category substitutes. --Polar Deluge 17:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explore the alternatives

Categories are self-maintaining. If you aim primarily to collect all the articles on foo, consider adding them to category:foo; project infoboxes can automatically add articles to categories (and bots can be written which automatically collect from categories and present lists sorted by other criteria; Mathbot is one such). Lists which consist solely of links and nothing else are liable to speedy deletion under criterion A3. Conversely, if you have a short list of people related to a given subject, it may be simpler just to include it in the main article.

• I object: Categories are not self-maintaining, and are in fact can be very cumbersome to maintain. For some categories, there is widespread disagreement over which articles belong in them, and this is usually policed at the page level by each page's watchers. As mentioned above, this has created many holes in categories. If you are trying to complete a category by going around adding tags to all the relevant pages, and you come across maintainers who disagree with you, adding those pages becomes an uphill battle. Add the links to a list and be done with it. The guideline above is redundant with the no category substitutes guideline above. --Polar Deluge 04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists are subject to the verifiability policy, just like all other Wikipedia content.

Hence:

:Each item on a list is an individual fact and requires an individual source.

:Each item needs its own citation allowing that item to be traced to a published source which confirms that the item belongs on the list.

:For some lists, many items may have the same source. Nevertheless, each item needs its own citation. A single blanket statement will not do, because future editing may add items to the list that are not contained in that source.

:Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for other articles. Therefore, in the case of a list item that is linked to a Wikipedia article, regardless of what that article may say, it is still necessary for the list to include its own source that confirms that the the item belongs in the list. For example, even though the article on Walter Mossberg states that he is a graduate of Brandeis University, Walter Mossberg should not be included in a list of Brandeis alumni without also including a direct source citation such as http://ptech.wsj.com/walt.html . If the linked article contains a source that confirms that the item belongs on the list, that citation should be copied to the list so that the that list item cites it directly.

• Agree with the above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• I also agree. Especially the second and third addition seem very important. Garion96 ^(talk) 01:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Agreement.Universitytruth 15:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• I object - This is completely redundant with WP:VER. And because it is incomplete, editors may make the wrong assumptions about how to deal with facts without citations (for which WP:VER has detailed instructions. --Polar Deluge 09:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability applies

Verifiability should be strictly enforced for lists that include names of living people===

In the case of names of living people appearing on lists:

• If there is any reasonable possibility that a person could object to their inclusion on a list, the verifiability policy should be enforced strictly. This means that unsourced entries should not merely be tagged as needing citations, but should be removed immediately.

Dpbsmith (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with the above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• I also agree. Especially the second and third addition seem very important. Garion96 ^(talk) 01:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• I disagree. Verifiability shouldn't be any more strictly enforced for one type of list over another. Removing items from a list can cripple it. Concensus should be reached before deconstructing a list! Strictly enforcing verifiability on lists that others have worked hard on will get you nothing but a reversion war. Here's a good example: List of major philosophers. They had a huge war on there concerning verifiability. Those defending the list won. The majority concluded that the list was too valuable to delete even though it was not sourced. But a quick glance at the article for anyone on this list would confirm pretty quickly whether he was major or not. When an article, which is supposed to have citations already, makes it clear that its subject qualifies for inclusion on a list, that should be good enough for inclusion. Since the vast majority of Wikipedia's content isn't verified, it is far too easy to use the verifiability issue as an excuse to delete whatever you personally don't agree with. In the philosopher example above, those who couldn't get Ayn Rand added to the list demanded that the rest of the philosophers on the list be deleted because they were not verified. They even tried to AfD the article. That kind of behavior just isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not dismantle it as we go. If you are fairly certain that an item belongs on a list, then add it. And if you find an item that you agree belongs on a list, but it doesn't have a source citation, then don't delete it, go find a reference, or give someone else the opportunity to by leaving the item on the list. Deleting entries because they are unverified is just plain lazy - do Wikipedia a favor and provide the verfication yourself: in most cases, it's out there on the Internet and fairly easy to find. --Polar Deluge 03:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think we need to restate already existing policies, because they apply to lists already. NPOV, Notability, Verifiability, etc. These already apply to all articles, including lists. --Polar Deluge 03:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Only that we have now WP:BLP that forces us to pay specific attention to articles about ;living people. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial subjects

Excercise good editorial judgement in lists dealing with controversial subjects. For example, if there is only a single source that describes the item to belogning in a list, that may not be a valid reason for inclusion, as it can the a minority POV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with the above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• I also agree. Especially the second and third addition seem very important. Garion96 ^(talk) 01:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• I object here too. "Exercise good editorial judgement" applies everywhere at all times on Wikipedia. This instruction is too vague. --Polar Deluge 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that you have never seen lists of controversial subjects used for POV pushing? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any that the above guideline would fix. "Exercise good editorial judgement" is a platitude, and is almost completely undefined here. Besides, POV'ers completely ignore guidelines anyways, except where it serves them. The above clause is already implied in everything that Wikipedia stands for. We don't want editors to edit badly - it goes without saying. But my main point is that the clause is just too general and vague to be useful. The example seems to the main point you are getting at, and whether or not a single reference is worthy is a judgement call subject to consensus. Again, you are simply covering territory which is already tied up nicely by WP:VER and WP:NPOV. --Polar Deluge 09:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There should not be a "list of X" unless there is an article on the topic "X"

There are exceptions, but, in general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article. It is very appropriate for the article on Zoology to include a list of notable zoologists within it, and for the article on the fictional series character Rick Brant to include a list of the Rick Brant books. Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and The Oz Books. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles—University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum, respectively—and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out.

On the other hand, topics such as List of small-bust models and performers, List of songs that contain the laughter of children, and List of nasal singers should be considered highly questionable because there are no articles on Small-bust models and performers, Songs that contain the laughter of children, or Nasal singers.

Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I STRONGLY OBJECT - The exceptions to the above "rule" are the important matter here, and the main result of the above clause will be to make it harder for the exceptions to survive. That lists can be created without an underlying article being in place is acceptable, but the above clause implies that it is not in the vast majority of cases. If a list is ridiculously pointless, it will very likely be deleted. Wikipedians aren't stupid. Also, the above examples don't pass Wikipedia:Notability, so this scenario is already covered by existing Wikipedia policy. We don't need arbitrary guidelines like the above to determine the worthiness of lists. Also, the terms "in general" and "should only" are contradictory, with the implication swaying toward "should only". It's a bad and badly written guideline, which will create uncertainty and confusion. Get rid of it. --Polar Deluge 09:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the above guideline provides no criteria for acceptable exceptions, and is therefore useless. AfD is the best way to handle pointless lists, on the basis of their pointlessness. And that's covered in Wikipedia:Notability. --Polar Deluge 10:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• This can be fixed by saying there should not normally be a list of X unless there is an article on the topic X. That would do. As a guideline it is very easily understood and unambiguous; let's say someone wants to create a list of makers of green socks - makers of socks is encyclopaedic, green is encyclopaedic, but makers of green socks is not. A list of makers of gren socks would fail AfD without question. The underlying purpose is sound: before creating a list, first demonstrate that the list criteria are of some encyclopaedic merit and not an arbitrary collection of information (pr WP:NOT). Just zis Guy you know? 10:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New proposed guideline

A new proposed guideline has been created at List Guidelines Reborn. Feel free to read it, consider it, and state your opinions on it there. AdamBiswanger1 03:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the clauses from the proposed guideline are included above on this talk page. I humbly request that we continue the discussions here, as the most comments on each topic have been written here, and because it is standard practice on Wikipedia to discuss proposed changes to a guideline on the guideline's talk page. --Polar Deluge 09:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- Ned Scott 10:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A test case

Per Polar Deluge's suggestion above, I would like to draw your attention to List of German-language philosophers. Both because it may help clarify the proposal above (also currently in the article itself) about 'including membership criteria', and because your comments may help me in developing said list. This is at the top of the article:

In my opinion, this is helpful information because (1) some people may be confused about whether the philosophers in question are German or wrote in the German language, (2) we are stating clearly how we are verifying that these individuals are philosophers (per criterion one). I'm not thrilled with criterion two yet, and that is under discussion on the List's talk page. But I think it is not obvious to anyone what makes a philosopher, which is why an explicit statement at the top of the article seems a very good idea, at least to this wikipedian editor who is not an idiot. :) Also, please note that the text at the top of the list avoids self-reference, per another excellent guideline. That is, the two paragraphs above could be used in a paper version as well. What do you all think about this? Does this provide an argument for or against including the bit about 'including membership criteria' in the List guideline? Thanks. --Anthony Krupp 19:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ASR?

Sorry, no, the above is not conform to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Think about print is only one of the aspects of WP:ASR. Hiding a self-reference in a piped link, like it is done in the example above (''[[WP:VER|reputable]]'' and ''[[WP:RS|reliable]]''), maybe doesn't bother print versions, but is still a unacceptable self-reference. --Francis Schonken 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. But otherwise: what about the idea of having the guidelines there at all? Again, I think they're useful, but per discussion above, PolarDeluge may not agree with that. I'd be interested in hearing from PD and other editors on this question. Thanks, --Anthony Krupp 21:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm usually clear, I think, but am not doing a good job of being so here! What I meant was: what about the idea of having any text whatsoever at the top of a list? If the list is called List of brown dogs, probably one doesn't need a statement at the top of the list saying "This is a list of brown dogs." Nor would I recommend having text like "This is a list of German-language philosophers." (That has self-reference.) But my question is: should there be no text whatsoever at the top of the list I'm putting forward as a test case (or at the top of any list)? Or could there be some kind of statement like the one I've suggested?--Anthony Krupp 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the introductory text

• Note that you already gave yourself away: you called the introduction to the German-language philosophers' list "guidelines". That may be a slip of the tongue. But I suppose that is how you see it. No, there is no place for a "manual" or "guidelines" on how to use a list (or whatever other article) in article namespace. Such guidelines are no encyclopedic content and should be removed from article namespace.
• Any other definition of the list than "This is a list of German-language philosophers" would be thwarting the name of the article, or would need a reference explaining why generally "German-language philosophers" (as in the title) is not a synonym to "German-language philosophers" (as in the list).
• Your current definition doesn't work: (for instance) a German-language author who publishes novels in German, and philosophical texts in English, would for no distinguishable reason be excluded from the list if the present artificial definition were to be followed.
• Looking through Talk:List of German-language philosophers I can only see that for about a month now an enormous amount of text and discussion was produced in search of an unnecessary definition. No, that effort did not improve the list, as far as I can see. If some entries in the list were doubtful, you could have tagged them {{fact}}, instead of commenting them out (like someone apparently did with Goethe at some point). Really, I can't see a single good reason why all that distraction was created. As far as I can see that only led away from the real purpose, creating a good list of German-language philosophers. --Francis Schonken 00:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Nowhere do I refer to the introduction to the List of German-language philosophers as a guideline (thus I have not given myself, or anything else, away); where I used the word 'guideline' above, I was obliquely referring to WP:ASR. I hope that is clearer now.
2. I disagree that lists should only have tautological definitions. Unless you are going to tell me that 'a philosopher is a philosopher,' it is, I think, important to indicate the sources we are using to verify that a given individual is listed as a philosopher by a reliable source. It's not like it's a list of brown dogs, where no one reasonably expects the terms brown or dog to be of doubtful signification.
3. Which German-language novelist who is also an English-language philosopher do you have in mind? Cases like these can be discussed on the Talk page. In the meantime, you should know that this List is able to pick up the 'category errors' of of the Category:German_philosophers, not to mention similar lists/categories of Austrian and Swiss ones. For example, Alexander Baumgarten was a German philosopher whose work is in Latin. So he would appear on one list, but not the other. Juergen Habermas appears on both lists. Salomon Maimon was a Lithuanian Jew, so does not appear on the List of German philosophers, but does appear on the List of German-language philosophers. You see? That's the value of the list: to identify authors of German-language philosophy, without concern for that author's blood or passport (which other lists and categories take into account, without regard for language of the texts).
4. While I can agree that not every moment of discussion on the related Talk page has immediately led to stunning results, I do think that engaged discussion has led to significant cooperation among the three main editors. And if you compare the list now to the list a month ago, you'll see that the list is indeed longer, and that now every (visible) name in the list has a footnote attached. Everything is documented. Whereas before, the names were just there, and they included a number of individuals not generally considered philosophers.

Anyway, I don't mean to ask for comment and then refute all of your points! I'm sorry if I'm being rude here; perhaps I'm too close to the list. But I and the others have worked very hard on it, and at least the three of us feel that having some explicit criteria listed (but still avoiding self-reference) is a good idea. I'd still be interested in more feedback, but perhaps on that list's talk page. I'll watch this page as well, though, for further discussion that may help develop the List guideline.

Again: I think that keeping the section on 'including membership criteria' is a good idea. --Anthony Krupp 12:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, have to apologize myself. Apparently you meant Wikipedia:List guideline#Lists and criteria for inclusion of list members when you wrote "what about the idea of having the guidelines there at all?" above. To answer that rhetorical question, which isn't rhetorical in my view: yes, what about the idea of having the guidelines there at all? --Francis Schonken 08:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See above.--Anthony Krupp 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologise then: you were referring to the intro of the List with the term "guidelines". And it was probably a slip of the tongue. --Francis Schonken 17:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have preferred you would have contributed to the discussions on this page always with the same account. Listing several entries in a same discussion under different names (like you did above in #Always include list membership criteria) kind of muddies the waters, not withstanding your honesty which I appreciate.

For clarity, were there still other accounts/identities/user names you used in this discussion (or in edits of Wikipedia:List guideline) apart from "Universitytruth" and "Anthony Krupp"? --Francis Schonken 08:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It was in the interest of clarity that I've twice signalled on this page (with no prompting) that I was formerly using Universitytruth as my main account; I recently created a new account using my real name, and as soon as I figured out how to do so, I also changed the userpage on both accounts to indicate that one is a master account and the other is an alternate of that account. Anyone can visit my userpages to see this and to see why I've retired one of the accounts for the time being. (Think Bruce Wayne and Batman.) Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 14:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia:Changing username would probably have been a more appropriate procedure. --Francis Schonken 17:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to substance: are there editors here who truly believe that no List on wikipedia should have any descriptive statement at the top of the list? If so, I would like to discuss that with you.--Anthony Krupp 14:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I take the lack of response to mean that there are no such editors.--Anthony Krupp 16:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists and criteria for inclusion of list members (revisited)

I've revised the two paragraphs that are listed above (here and here) as well as on the article page itself (currently as points 2.1 and 2.2). In the interest of improving and building consensus, I submit the following for discussion as a rewording or even a replacement of those disputed paragraphs. (My German-language philosopher example can be replaced with something else; I add it just to give us something to discuss.)

I think the preceding responds to PolarDeluge's suggestion not to reinvent the wheel by referring to WP:VER etc. in these guidelines. I think it also makes an important point about reducing instruction creep in lists where instructions are superfluous, and giving a clear indication for the reader of other lists that can truly help him/her make sense of them. Comments?--Anthony Krupp 15:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• WP:V applies to lists like to any other page in article namespace, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Lists: "Lists make no exception to policies and guidelines applicable to all main or article namespace pages"; Category namespace has slight differences (not that these guidelines & policies don't apply, but their modus operandi can be slightly different for categories): sometimes needing a restrictive category definition is one of these differences (while it is not possible to give individual references for verification of each entry that appears on a category page), see, for example Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Clearly define the category: "It is preferable that the category definition (on the category page) tries to exclude vague and/or non-Neutral point of view (NPOV) cases. In many cases, only referencing a Wikipedia article explaining the term is not sufficient as a definition for a category. This is true for almost every sensitive category. If the article you want to use as definition is problematic in itself, consider improving the article. Otherwise, or if that is not sufficient, write a definition of what goes in and what goes out of the category on the category page, with the reference article(s) as background information." — Indeed, nor WP:V, nor for example WP:NPOV need "re-inventing" for lists. WP:NPOV & WP:V imply that if several non-compatible definitions for a concept exist in standard literature, it is not up to Wikipedians to select one of these as the "true" definition, discarding all the others. Lists allow to annotate an entry clarifying which definition is used (or just link to the reliable source where the epithet is used, even if that reliable source doesn't explicitly states a definition of the term).
• I never said that a list intro could not contain anything more than a tautological definition:
  • Remark that "German-language philosophers" (as in the title) is not the same as "German-language philosophers" (as on the list page). The second is more user-friendly, the user only has to click once for finding out whether "Dutch" is a "German language" if unsure about that (etc). But as such there's nothing wrong with tautological definitions. Some philosophers would say that *every* sensible definition is necessarily and unavoidably a tautology.
  • Sometimes the definition needs to escape tautology, but my advise would be to do that only with a proper reference. Suppose you'd be making a "List of yellow ducks". Suppose that in scientific literature ducks that have a yellowish orange color are always included in what is generally called "yellow ducks". Then provide a reference for that, and proceed as in standard literature. See for example List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach: this list includes spurious works, as well as works that are definitely not by Bach, using the BWV catalog as a reference (which is the established practice for listing works by Bach). Since it is a list the composers whose works ended up in the BWV catalog can be indicated.
  • The intro can do lots of other things than define, for instance point to Category:German philosophers or Category:Austrian philosophers, like you did. But that is not even part of a definition, as you know yourself ("..., but some are neither German nor Austrian by ethnicity or nationality.")
  • Your "dog species" example is remarkable, and as far as I know more problematic than the "German-language philosophers". There is an ongoing dispute whether wolves aren't the same species as dogs. The list intro could clarify:
    • that there is a separate list of wolf species (see Wolf (disambiguation) to get an idea); in the case the wolves are not included in the "dog species" list, the proper naming for the list would probably rather be List of dog breeds, like it is in fact currently.
    • whether the wolf species are integrated throughout the list, or, alternatively, that they are contained in a separate section of the list.
    • ... etc (note that the intro should also make clear where the "species" having "dog" in their name, but are no canis lupus, can be found, like the rodent Prairie dog – also here "dog breed" does not have that ambiguity, and loses the problem through the list name and a tautological definition).
  • If the list is not alphabetical, the intro should best explain how the entries are organised (see List of cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach and List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function for lists with the same content but a different organizing principle) --Francis Schonken 17:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Francis Schonken, I'm confused. You said above that "[a]ny other definition of the list than 'This is a list of German-language philosophers' would be thwarting the name of the article, or would need a reference explaining why generally "German-language philosophers" (as in the title) is not a synonym to "German-language philosophers" (as in the list)." But you also said that "I never said that a list intro could not contain anything more than a tautological definition". Leaving aside the details of the List I brought up, can you explain for the purpose of discussing this guideline what this guideline should say about introductions to articles? Are you saying that the introduction should be a tautology, except where it is not? If not, then what are you saying? Thanks, --Anthony Krupp 19:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No response?--Anthony Krupp 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, reading through your comments above on wolves and dogs (for which I thank you), it occurs to me that one way to deal with the problem of defining a philosopher is to either collectively build a wikipedia article called philosopher -- currently, philosopher redirects to philosophy -- or else write something about the term philosopher in the article philosophy. (The latter would probably be better than the former.) I am sure this will occasion much debate, so I would start out on the relevant Talk page first, but perhaps it will help focalize discussion on the various lists of philosophers. Thanks for the inspiration. --Anthony Krupp 13:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WOW, what an oversight. There's no article on philosopher. Heck, there's on for carpenter, plumber, electrician, scholar, professor, mathematician, psychologist, pilot, and butcher, baker, and candlestick maker. Well, not that last one. But still, none on philosopher. I'm on it! Bye! --Polar Deluge 13:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attention: Jossi

Jossi, Anthony, please stop being impatient. New sections have no place on the guideline page until they've acquired consensus. You are skipping the most important step of the process of creating guidelines: that of building consensus. You are trying to apply the process in reverse: requiring the building of consensus to remove the changes you've made to the guideline page. If you keep going straight to the guideline page with your changes (which have failed to reach consensus here so far, and in a previous proposal draft), then this matter will have to be reported on the Administrator's notice board, as you keep violating WP:POV, which is especially serious when it pertains to the foundation upon which Wikipedia is built: it's policies and guidelines. Your actions will not survive the scrutiny of several administrators, so please, do not force the matter any further. Continue to press your points of view on this talk page, and if they have merit, others will support them. --Polar Deluge 03:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Polar Deluge, but what "new sections" are you referring to? Is it possible you're confusing me with someone else? I have not added anything to the list guideline, ever. Today I removed one paragraph (for which consensus was not reached) from the guideline: that paragraph remains legible in at least two versions on this talk page. You have removed that same paragraph three times in the last month, when you moved the section on including membership criteria to this page. What in the world are your accusations about? (See Polar Deluge's talk page for further request for clarification.) Thanks much. --Anthony Krupp 04:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, for the typo. I've corrected it above. Sorry for the confusion. --Polar Deluge 05:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

PD: Please tone down the rethoric and the silly threats. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to add to the List guideline: statement of list membership criteria

Comments, revisions, etc. sought.--Anthony Krupp 13:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

When the list's title involves a contentious term it sould probably not exist at all. Just zis Guy you know? 17:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The point by JzG should be well taken. I have encountered the problem with articles before and the solution was to redirect, merge, or rewrite the article and name it properly. Amerindianarts 19:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone give a few examples of such contentious terms, such that the article shouldn't exist? Maybe that can be included in the addition I'm proposing.--Anthony Krupp 13:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this. I agree with JzG. However, it seems to me that a clear definition of the list criteria is a good idea. For example, consider List of bisexual people. Now, if someone said this list shouldn't exist at all, I wouldn't argue about it. Nevertheless, it exists. And I've been actively marking entries that need citations, and in some cases adding citations... and another user, Nightjar, has been very energetic in adding citations... so the list is in much better shape than it was a few weeks ago. There is, however, still a problem with what to include. Should it be limited to people for whom there is a citable source that uses the word "bisexual?" Or should it allow people like Elsie de Wolfe, who, as The New York Times put it in the 1920s, "When in New York she makes her home with Miss Elizabeth Marbury at 13 Sutton Place" and whom was later married to Sir Charles Mendl, with many sources asserting a lesbian relationship between De Wolfe and Marbury and none that I've found making any definitive characterization of her relationship with Mendl?" Should it include pornstars, for whom it may be easy to find a reliable source indicating that he or she has worked in a professional capacity with members of both sexes, but much harder to find a reliable source addressing whether he or she actually experiences erotic feelings for members of both sexes?

On the whole, I'd say every list should contain a carefully phrased statement of the criteria for inclusion. In my opinion, for a "list of X," this should almost always be "a source citation of a reliable source which uses the word X." But in any case, the criterion should be stated. It should be stated in the article itself, and should be stated in the form of directions ("Add new entries to this list only if..."), because lists are subject to "drive-by" additions and the rules should be evident to the most casual editor. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems most lists will run into such problems at the borders of their criteria. I would guess this should be handled on the talk page, but especially in tricky cases, a footnote with a citation would be a Very Good Idea. Based only on what you've put here, I would not be inclined to include Marbury, as it sounds like there is no strong evidence to suggest sexual attraction to a man. But as I wouldn't be inclined to manage a list like this, I'm not the best one to ask. I think that looking for a reliable print source stating that someone "is X," thus "is bisexual," would be best. Or a source stating that the person "has been with women" and "has been with men," in whatever form the statements take.--Anthony Krupp 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that every list should have a well-defined criteria. Amerindianarts 01:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Without a well-defined criteria, many lists end up being either useless or POV magnets. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that lists should have well-defined criteria (or a well defined criterion). A month ago, I would have ended this reply there. But meanwhile, various users have brought WP:ASR to my attention. I think the trick will be to place a statement at the top of the list about who is included on the list ("The following individuals are...") without getting into self-reference and instruction creep ("Names should only be added to this list if..."). So the brief descriptive statement, which is not prohibited per WP:ASR, would stand in place of a prescriptive one. (The gist of WP:ASR, it seems to me, is: "Think about wikipedia being in a print medium someday." So "avoid self-reference" seems to mean "avoid referring to wikipedia or anything specific to its current online medium." See WP:ASR talk page for details.) Of course the list's talk page (where WP:ASR does not apply) can have even clearer statements at the top, with self-reference and all. Maybe that can help?--Anthony Krupp 13:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO lists are a special case because they are specially subject to "drive-by edits." For this reason, conspicious, prescriptive directions, while inappropriate for normal articles, are appropriate in list articles and justify suspending WP:ASR. Many casual editors are unaware of the plethora of WIkipedia policies, and a simple, clear, visible, obtrusive statement of the rules is of benefit. It is obvious that putting "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" under every edit box does not lead people to click the link and read the policy.

I'd suggest an HTML comment as an alternative... if there were a way to make an HTML comments appear in 24-point bold type in red within a flashing pastel green box.

IMHO though, the biggest problem requiring obtrusive instructions is not the lack of bright-line criteria, but the absolute requirement of including an inline source citation, next to the item, within the list itself. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on discussion above, I'd like to submit the following for another quick round of discussion and/or straw poll. Is there consensus on this? If so, this can become the new section two of the List guideline. Or at least the first part of the new section two (pending other discussions).--Anthony Krupp 16:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• "[...] no further statement of list membership criteria is necessary in the introduction." — Yes, but then at least the list name should be repeated in the intro (self-evident, but your formulation seems to indicate that that can be omitted). And then also, the essential concepts included in the list title, and repeated in the intro, should be wiki-linked. I doubt whether there is any use in repeating such self-evident stuff in the WP:LIST guideline. But don't make descriptions that seem to indicate an exception to the self-evident.

Why would any introduction be necessary in this case?--Anthony Krupp 19:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• "[...] short annotation at the top of the list [...]" — Two points:
  • the "short annotation" should not diverge from the usual understanding of the concepts that define the list. Otherwise lists would be a perfect excuse for a POV fork. In other words, the annotation should not break the "principle of least surprise". E.g. defining a philosopher as an "individual who has written philosophical texts" might seem unproblematic on first sight. But then Socrates wouldn't be a philosopher any more. Now, there's a "surprise" that should be avoided. When definitions are given they should be as generic as possible.
  • the "short annotation" regarding really ambiguous terms should usually be supported by external references, per WP:V. But whenever possible, use less ambiguous terms of course (see "dog species" vs. "dog breeds" example above). --Francis Schonken 08:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What then would be your suggestion for rewording the proposed new text (in the gray box)? I would appreciate it if you could suggest something. It would be nice to feel progress was being made here.--Anthony Krupp 19:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Your example about Socrates makes a good point. Actually, it occurs to me meanwhile that WP:V should trump the introduction, which would state what a philosopher is. Rather, since wikipedia is supposed to be tertiary, leave it to the reputable, reliable secondary sources to determine who is/is not a philosopher. We just cite them. So meanwhile I agree with you about potential instruction creep. --Anthony Krupp 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How many instruction and/or guideline pages are there directly about lists? What are they? --Polar Deluge 14:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to add to the List guideline: Prescriptive directions may be appropriate

The following proposal was added to the List guideline by dpbsmith; I've moved it to this Talk page for discussion.--Anthony Krupp 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Lists are somewhat different from other Wikipedia articles." — I don't think so.
• "They are particularly subject to casual editing, and attract addition of items by novice editors." — Unfounded assumption.
• "A clear, prescriptive statement of "the rules" for adding an item may be appropriate on some list pages even though, per WP:ASR, such a statement would be inappropriate for a normal article. In particular, a clear statement that says that items should be added only if accompanied by a source citation may be useful (even though the verifiability policy linked underneath every edit box)." — Verbose, tries to wiggle a way out of the obvious policy- and guideline-dodging intent. If a list has a doubtful entry (that isn't too doubtful to remove on sight), the {{citation needed}} template (aka the "{{fact}}" tag) should be applied per WP:V, or the entry should be discussed on talk. The {{fact}} template is a self-reference. No problem for WP:ASR: limited use of self-references is allowed in templates. Once all {{fact}} tags have been resolved (by either removing the entry or providing a citation), the list is self-reference free. So the WP:V system resolves all self-references by itself.
• "List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder" is imho not such a good example. The "believed to" reads like an invitation to break WP:NOT#Crystal ball. Unencyclopedic. Whatever useful encyclopedic content could be contained in that article, it has a wrong title. --Francis Schonken 07:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree about the title. I have no objection whatever to moving it. It was the established title at the time I took an interest in it. I don't believe the title will have much effect one way or another on the behavior of people adding items to the list. Move it to whatever title you think is appropriate. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If the bipolar list had a clearer title, there wouldn't have been a need to include instructions.

Nonsense. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to semantically pick that paragraph apart, but Frank beat me to it. Therefore, I'll move on to a diatribe on the verifiability policy as it pertains to lists...

• The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy states the following:

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. Also in that case it may be helpful for your co-editors to leave a clarifying note on the talk page, for instance indicating which sources you already checked. You can also make the unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding <!-- before the section you want to comment out and --> after it, until reliable sources have been provided. When using this "commenting out" technique it is usually best to leave a clarifying note on the talk page.

Thus provision is made for unsourced material to be added to Wikipedia. If editors, especially new ones, can't just dive in and add what they know to the encyclopedia, then they might not bother. By the way, most of the introductory instructions for newcomers teach them to "just start editing". The emphasis they are being taught is to add to the encyclopedia. Most of Wikipedia is comprised of material without citations. To absolutely require that every fact added be accompanied by a citation would slow writing for Wikipedia to a crawl. The above proposed guideline wishes to flip current policy so that contributions cannot be made without citations. The current policy does not have this all or nothing connotation, and therefore the above proposal is trying to override established policy. If we were to remove all the unsourced phrases from Wikipedia, there wouldn't be much left! I oppose all guideline proposals that are more strict than the policies they are trying to enforce.

I'd be perfectly happy if uncited additions to lists were consistently tagged as needing citations and eventually removed in due course. Once an entry is tagged as needing a citation, there's no particular urgency about doing anything. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And what about field lists? There should be no need for citations for members of a list of academic subjects:

• For example, the basic topic lists and the more comprehensive topic lists. You can verify quite easily by clicking on any subject in those lists whether or not they belong to the subject. The article itself reveals what the link is about, and therefore no external proof of this is needed. ** Do we have to provide a citation that "bipolar disfunction" is indeed a psychology topic before we can add it to the List of psychology topics? That would be absurd!
  • None of those lists have such citations.
• Then there are the lists of lists. The List of basic topic lists is filled with entries that have no citations. No one has verified from reputable sources that the lists included on that list are in fact lists of basic topics! Nor that they are lists!
• The same applies to the List of topic lists: there are no citations verifiying that each list listed there is a list of topics, nor that they are lists.
  • They are entirely Wikipedia constructions, and therefore all lists of lists are by definition ORIGINAL RESEARCH!
  • Where will you find outside sources to verify that a Wikipedia list is in fact a list and therefore qualifies to be on a list of lists? NOWHERE! Therefore, these lists and all the lists listed on them are in direct violation of Wikipedia policy.
• The lists of rivers have no citations that the rivers listed on them actually exist. Should we remove the Nile, the Amazon, the Mississipi, and the Thames, just because there are no citations that they are in fact rivers? The List of rivers of Africa has no citations that verify that the members of the list actually belong. According to the proposed clause above, I wouldn't be allowed to add river articles to this river list, even though the article clearly identifies itself in its title as being about a river.
• Do we have to have a citation before we can add German Shepherd to the List of dog breeds? Is the Tiger barred from the artice Big cat and its species list if we don't have a citation verifying it is a big cat?

There are hundreds of thousands of examples like this all throughout Wikipedia, which makes the verification policy absolutely absurd in regard to lists. With respect to such lists, the verification policy is STUPID. Therefore, I oppose any guideline the literal interpretation of which would bar topics from topic lists, lists from lists of lists, or lists commonly known things like dogs and cats from being added to their respective lists.

Here's my favorite example:

The List of academic disciplines is one of the most useful and informative lists on Wikipedia. Yet it has absolutely no citations on it. NONE! No one has provided any verification from any external source that any of those members are in fact "academic disciplines". To get them from a college catalog would be going to an original source, and would constitute ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Because their catalog would be a listing of courses they actually offered to the consumer/student/customer. You can access thousands of such catalogs on the Internet, but that's not good enough according to policy. So my question is this: which one of you has the balls to challenge the lack of verification of the items on that list? This is one spectacle I just don't want to miss. Come on, any volunteers? This I gotta see. Who is willing to waste time on such an obvious list? I've had my eye on that list for a long time, and I've been itching to enforce WP:VER on it. According to that policy:

1. it is "non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus"
2. "Any edit lacking a source may be removed" by any editor
3. "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed"

If it wasn't in violation of WP:POINT, I'd go blank that page right now!

Instead, I think I'll create the List of lists with unverified entries. I guarantee it would include the vast majority of the lists on Wikipedia, starting with ALL of the top-level lists.

I could rant on forever (and I'm tempted to), but I'll instead sum up with the following question:

Should every entry on every single list, including the lists of lists, be required to include a citation?

--Polar Deluge 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists whose only purpose is to group Wikipedia entries should be categories; that's what categories are for.

Those lists are not appropriately categores, should indeed meet WP:V. If that's not practical, then we should declare that lists are not encyclopedia articles and create a sister Wiki project for them.

Lists are, have always been, and continue to be some of the most problematic articles in Wikipedia. You complain that I say "lists are different from other articles," but your own comments above also assume, from beginning to end, that they should be handled in a different way from other articles.

Your solution is to weaken WP:V for lists. Mine is to weaken WP:NSR for lists. WP:V is a core policy. WP:NSR is just a guideline. I think my solution is better. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is an important point. Since WP:V is an official policy, whereas WP:NSR is a guideline, it seems that the former trumps the latter. How that plays out, of course, we need to discuss.--Anthony Krupp 12:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, "Lists are, have always been, and continue to be some of the most problematic articles in Wikipedia" is an unfounded assumption. My experience contradicts it. As I don't feel like disclosing what I have on my watchlist, and as my personal experience is anyhow probably not what would convince you, I'd like you to look to the following: Category:Semi-protected. This should show ratio of problematic lists vs. other articles. Currently there's about 300 pages in that category. Substracting pages that are not in main namespace I'd say there are about 200 semi-protected encyclopedia articles. These are the lists:

1. List of Australians
2. List of ethnic slurs
3. List of finance topics
4. List of gay porn stars
5. List of historical elephants
6. List of promotional Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards
7. List of rappers

...less than 4%. I'm all ears to material that could convince me that lists are "exceptionally" problematic, warranting a specific approach in guidelines, but until then, no, I don't agree with this generalisation, and even less with the conclusions drawn from it. --Francis Schonken 13:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of scroll boxes

There have been discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shadow of the Colossus about the use of a scroll box to include long lists in article (see for example Shadow of the Colossus#Audio. While the arguments for, were reduced list and saved space, I argued that it reduces usability, especially when printing or copying the page. Take a look at the printable version with a scroll box and [without, the one using a scroll box doesn't display all tracks. I see that there's no policy or guideline dealing with this, so I need your comments. Thank you. CG 07:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that this is a bad idea. All browsers might not properly format such an article, which is the same reason "hide/show" isn't used for article content. Even without technical limitations.. this doesn't seem like a good idea at all. If a list or something is too large for a main article then it should be split into a list article. I can only imagine the mess this could make if it caught on for things like character bios and so on. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems also to go against thinking of wikipedia as an eventual print publication.--Anthony Krupp

Can we add this issue in the guideline? CG 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think scroll boxes are cute. Therefore I fully support their application on USER PAGES. They have no place in the encyclopedia. Usability should be top priority. No scroll boxes in lists. --Polar Deluge 06:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

They ended up taking it out of the article, but if anyone was wondering here's part of what I wrote on the FAC: "The scroll box looks damn ugly, and the rational to save space is just silly. You know what saves even more space? Deleting all the text. It's true! It saves tons of space if you delete the entire article! We don't write articles to save space. If the list is too bulky and not important enough to be shown in whole, then why is it on the article?? If it is too long for the main article then split it off as a list article. This partial hiding of content is just .. bad. It looks bad and unprofessional, it raises a question of technical compatibly like printing or browser rendering, and shouldn't be acceptable for a featured article. Also, I can easily see this being a way for vandals to hide their vandalism in articles. Content should not be hidden or partially hidden in articles."

-- Ned Scott 08:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Without contending anything about whether the content of that list should be kept in Wikipedia (anyway I agree on not hiding half of it in a scroll list), note that a technical solution consists in multi-column tabular lists, as in the FA Sylvia (ballet)#Musical scenes (which might benefit from converting the list to a wikitable, but that's not the point here). --Francis Schonken 09:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Embedded lists

This page references Wikipedia:Embedded list, which does not seem to get much traffic (judging by its page history). Therefore, I wanted to post here to notify people that I have proposed 2 changes at Wikipedia talk:Embedded list. Please stop by if you would like to participate in the discussion. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists vs. paragraphs

I can't find anything that says that paragraphs are preferable to lists if possible, although I had understood that to be a Wikipedia guideline. Can anyone point me in the right direction? --Chris Griswold 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I recall that Jimmy Wales has said in the past that he thinks prose is better than lists because lists provide little information. I know he's said it on the mailing list. Good luck finding references. -Will Beback 04:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the last thing Jimbo Wales wrote on his own user talk page:

Good grief. I know this will sound harsh, but I think you should perhaps consider finding another hobby if you think "I thought I heard that..." is a valid basis for inclusion of a claim in an encyclopedia! diff

If we're going to compose guidelines in that fashion I think everyone would agree that's even worse.

A month ago, Jimbo had written on the same page:

[...] as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. diff

So, let's work this out without vague "I recall that Jimmy Wales has said..." kind of phraseology, if possible.

Lists only have a real function if they're annotated. If a list doesn't need notes, and it is not redundant, it should usually be converted to a category. If, on the other hand, a list is swamped with explanations, then it would usually be best to convert it to prose. --Francis Schonken 06:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I can explain better: I mean in the context of an article. Editors on WP:Comics articles such as Ultimate Spider-Man or X-Men: The Last Stand regularly take paragraphs that list something or that note a series of similar things and stretch them out into long, bulleted lists. I'm just trying to find something that discusses this sort of thing. --Chris Griswold 06:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia, point 2 seems to indicate that minor characters in fiction should be listed in the main article.
• Note that "horizontal style" is a list format too. If you're talking about single-sentence sections like Ultimate Spider-Man#People who unmasked Spider-Man but do not know his name the difference with a "horizontal style" list isn't too big. But probably keeping it in a sentence is slightly more "fluent" and attractive. I'm not talking about whether such section should be kept at all (I have no opinion on that point). You'd need to agree this isn't trivia of course. --Francis Schonken 09:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to clean this article up recently, but you're right: That may be a section that needs to go. While young Peter Parker clumsily loses his mask constantly is a big feature of the series, I don't know that we need to enumerate the tens of people who know his dirty little secret. I was also talking about the "Marvel references and cameos" section; for some reason editors want to make those paragraphs into lists. --Chris Griswold 09:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Argh. I'm trying hard not to lose my decorum here, but this is sliding towards an exercise in "how to present trivia in Wikipedia, in a fashion that they don't look like trivia".

Maybe, if I have a recommendation to give, process the data in that section along the lines described in Wikipedia:Trivia#Practical steps suggestion. My best guess is that after that there will be no problem any more whether Ultimate Spider-Man#Marvel references and cameos should be presented as a list or as prose. --Francis Schonken 10:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How ironically hysterical. This made my day. "Lists vs. paragraphs" is covered in the reference cited under the heading directly preceding this one, less than an inch away from ChrisGriswold's query! --Polar Deluge 13:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up; I'm glad you seem to be in a happy mood today. --Chris Griswold 14:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of list membership criteria: two points

I'm concerned that the Guidelines, as they currently read, provide little to no advice regarding list criteria. Is it really the case that we have no further collective wisdom to share? In the discussion above, as I read it, roughly three users agree with me that some language about a statement of list membership criteria should be on the guideline. One user made some comments on my proposal, but hasn't provided a rewording I've requested from him yet. I'll attempt one now, taking his comments into consideration, and invite discussion again. I hope that we can collectively come to some agreement about this, whatever the result is. This is still a rough draft, but I hope that it takes into account the points raised above. I have also tried to keep the tone advisory rather than prescriptive. I hope that is clear, and where it is not, someone could edit to make the tone more advisory. After all, this is a guideline we're talking about, not a policy.

Can we hammer this out and bring it into the guideline in some form? --Anthony Krupp 12:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll try:

Statement of list membership criteria

• When the list's title seems unambiguous, e.g. "List of dog species," the article can open with a simple statement e.g. This is a list of dog species.

• When the list's title involves a term more open to interpretation, e.g. "List of analytic philosophers," the introduction should briefly describe what items are contained in the list, e.g. This list contains the names of philosophers who worked in the analytic tradition.

• Per WP:V, every name added to such a list should be traceable to a reliable, reputable source, which should be cited. If the name is linked to a Wikipedia article, and a supporting citation exists in that article, it should be copied into the list article. Per WP:V the responsibility for providing that citation rests with the editor adding the name.

• List inclusion should be based on what the cited source says directly, not editors' interpretation. Thus, a person should be included in a "list of polymaths" on the basis of a source that says "he was Germany's greatest man of letters—poet, critic, playwright, and novelist—and the last true polymath to walk the earth," but not on the basis of separate sources that say separately that he was a novelist, a poet, a critic, and a playwright, from which some might conclude that he was worthy of the name "polymath."

• When new items are added to a list without an accompanying reference they should be tagged the item with {{fact}}, which results in this^{[citation needed]}, pending a reference being provided. If no reference is provided within a reasonable length of time, the item should be removed from the article and placed on the talk page.

• If necessary, i.e. if inaccurate or unsourced items are being frequently added to the article, then despite WP:NSR it may be appropriate to put explicit, prescriptive directions on the article page itself.

Looks good. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

(For the record, I made edits subsequent to that comment). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, looks good. Small nitpicking, point 5 doesn't work with (negative) information on living persons. Garion96 (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looks good from here, too. Amerindianarts 00:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks for drafting this. -Will Beback 04:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to tweak this based on the excellent edit by Dpbsmith. I've tried to tighten it a bit further, and for the moment have left out the bit about prescriptive directions. I've done so because I think it will raise controversy. That's not bad in itself, but I want to make sure we can agree on these two points first. It would be nice to have them in the guideline, since currently the guideline is really not very helpful. If/when we can get these back into the guideline, we can continue to talk about problem lists and the possible need for prescriptive introductions (vs. descriptive ones and WP:V, which I think will take care of most problems).--Anthony Krupp 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

From previous discussion, I take it that Dpbsmith, ≈ jossi ≈, Garion96, Amerindianarts, Will Beback, and I find the preceding acceptable. I'll wait a day or two for any further discussion before adding it to the guideline.--Anthony Krupp 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I like Anthony Krupp's version also, and I've substituted it in the article. It is very important in my mind not to leave this section blanked out while some wording tweak is hammered out. There might well be room for further refinement in the wording, but Anthony's words are a heck of a lot better than an empty space. LotLE×talk 15:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Since recent discussion (13-15 August 06) has dealt with points 1 and 2 only, I only feel comfortable assuming a rough consensus (of Dpbsmith, ≈ jossi ≈, Garion96, Amerindianarts, Will Beback, me, and LotLE) for those two points. Anyone with concerns about those two points, please state them here for discussion. And of course we can start a new section of discussion for the proposed third point.--Anthony Krupp 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat: Anyone with concerns about those two points, please state them here for discussion. This is not the same as ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and blanking these two points from the guideline.--Anthony Krupp 11:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good example where criteria are important

I think much of the discussion here has missed cases where criteria provide important clarification that cannot be contained in the title itself. Many lists concerned with identity, or with pejorative terms, make the criteria especially important. So, for example, the dictators, various categories of criminals, but also GLB lists, Jewish lists, etc. In the first two, presumably no one wants to be included. In the last couple types, inclusion is often taken as either an honor or a shame, depending on who's reading... but in either valence, it is very fuzzy exactly who "is" GLB or Jewish (many slightly different criteria are used in informal speech: self-identification, ancestry and/or religious/cultural practice for the Jewish ones... but how much, etc).

But let me give a list that I created where the terms are not nearly so emotionally laden, and yet extra explicit criteria make the list much better. It could really use further expansion, but in terms of citational standards and overall form, I believe it is exemplary. List of African American jurists leads with the description:

This list includes individuals self-identified as African Americans who have made prominent contributions to the field of law in the United States, especially as eminent judges or legal scholars. Individuals who may have obtained law degrees or practiced law, but whose reasons for notability are not closely related to that profession, are generally not listed here.

Every word in the criterial description warns against specific probable boundary issues. People who are merely "said to be" AA don't count (to avoid the "discovery of black ancestor" of people who do not identify as AA). It also limits to the USA, which is usually implied by "AA", but explicitly distinguishing from the rest of the Americas is helpful. A sentence is needed to explain why "jurist" is different from simply "lawyer" (but also not identical with "judge"); a temptation to include people who just "got a law degree" even though predominantly notable for other reasons is cut off. LotLE×talk 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm copying another proposal from above, and adjusting to respond to some objections to its wording. See what you all think of this:

I think this gets at the spirit of the original proposal, yet also respects WP:ASR. I don't know: does this seem ok, or is it too watered down, or is it too much instruction creep? I'm not wedded to this one, just trying to move towards consensus based on disagreements above.--Anthony Krupp 17:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional good example of criteria necessity

Glad that LotLE named GLB lists. List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people started de-problematisation some months ago, after I had removed all list inclusion criteria. List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers was already non-problematic for about as long as I know that list, while it never had list inclusion criteria. Afaik list inclusion criteria as presented above are -at best- a solution in search for a problem.

See prior discussions at (for instance):

• Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Lists and references (Jossi participated in that discussion as Jossifresco)
• Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 2 (→ Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia rejected as a guideline)

Note also that Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) has some recommendations about list inclusion criteria (which are afaik only an issue for stand-alone lists - or are we going to write "please don't list trivia here" under a Trivia section header soon?). --Francis Schonken 07:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The GLB list have become minimally workable because of the addition of list criteria. Francis Schonken's claim is almost precisely 180 degrees removed from the truth here. Specifically, the criteria currently given are:

This is a partial list of confirmed and debated famous people who were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual.

The historical concept and definition of sexual orientation varies and has changed greatly over time, for example the word "gay" wasn't used to describe sexual orientation until the mid 20th century. See homosexuality and bisexuality for various criteria that have been used to denote lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people.

Description/elaboration of the criteria continues for two fairly extensive paragraphs in the first section, specifically warning against subjective or POV over-inclusion.

Actually, that's still not quite perfect criteria IMO, but the lists got bearable after a lot of intervention and work by Jossi and I to enforce list criteria, and almost certainly could not have been improved absent these criteria.

Please stop disrupting essays and guidelines to advance some idiosyncratic anti-criteria bugbear, Francis Schonken. This behavior is sufficiently disturbing that I'm beginning to worry I need to try to address it through user conduct RfC or some such mechanism. For god sake: repeatedly blanking the WP:LISTV essay!! LotLE×talk 10:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Faulty analysis, faulty conclusions. --Francis Schonken 10:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That discussion was closed by you and not rejected. I abandoned that discussion because of your WP:OWN attitude. So, please thread with care. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 10:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organizational ideas

My problems with the current version of the guideline:

• Under the "Purpose of lists" section header there is a "see also" link to Wikipedia:Categories vs lists. That is an essay, created by a single editor in a single day about a month ago. There is a comparable guideline that has been established much longer, with the cooperation of many more wikipedians. That guideline also makes the comparison with series boxes, many of which are a sort of list (e.g. {{Princess Royal}} or whatever). That guideline is Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. I'd like to see the "see also" link under the section header changed from [[Wikipedia:Categories vs lists]] to [[Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes]]. Note that both of these pages are listed in the "see also" section at the bottom of the page, so there's no intention to remove a link to the essay from the page, only provide a more appropriate boilerplate link for a section. --Francis Schonken 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The two pages mentioned are completely different topics. A "see also" to both of them is perfectly reasonable, if that latter is not linked right now. See also links are cheap (and essays identify themselves as essays, policy as policy, and guidelines as guidelines... readers can distinguish). LotLE×talk 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• The section Statement of list membership criteria de facto only applies for stand-alone lists, so it could be moved to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Only that page has already similar recommendations, slightly better written in, for instance, the Introductory sentence and Selection criteria sections. There's much room for improvement there, but I oppose to writing an even more contentious version in the general Lists guideline. For embedded lists the membership criteria recommendations would have the strangest effects. See for example Latin Empire, which contains two lists entirely unambiguous by their section headers. Applying the guidelines intended for stand-alone lists would not improve these lists. --Francis Schonken 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that the criteria issue applies mostly (but definitely not exclusively) to standalone lists. Adding a couple words indicating that focus seems like a good idea. However, Anthony Krupp's language (and Jossi's earlier language also) is much, much better than the somewhat sloppy phrasing at the stand-alone lists page. Perhaps I'll try to improve the latter guideline also. Clearly, we need appropriate links into the stand-alone guideline, but I think they're there now. LotLE×talk 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Under the Statement of list membership criteria section header there is a "see also" link to Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia, which is an essay. Yes I stopped the vote initiated by Jossi regarding Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia. There were two main reasons for that: (1) That page challenged the coordinated core content policies WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I was in good company to think that that was the case, for example SlimVirgin, Grace Note and some others gave a detailed explanation to LotLE, Jossi and some others why that was the case here: Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 2#Proposed alternative versions (and many other sections of that page). According to WP:NPOV these core content policies should not be challenged by votes. (2) The second reason why I broke off the vote can be found in the Guidelines for creating policies and guidelines, point 9: "Votes are rarely appropriate for policy debates, and almost never for guidelines". So I'd remove the link to Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia from under a section header in the lists guideline. Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia survives as an essay currently. So keep it listed in the "see also" section at the bottom of the page (note that LotLE removed that listing there yesterday). --Francis Schonken 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an(other) example of Francis Schonken's quite longstanding disruption of anything that mentions list criteria. He repeatedly blanked WP:LISTV, and redirected it various unrelated places unilaterally, and inserted serveral "counter-essays" advancing entirely unrelated ideas, and disrupted votes to try to make it a guideline (using several actions similar to mentioned... I'd have to look through logs to remember exact sequence).

I'm actually fine with WP:LISTV as an essay rather than a guideline. In part, it is indeed at a slightly higher conceptual level than a uniformally applyable guideline. But for Francis Schonken to have some weird phobia/obsession about preventing editors from ever seeing its "heretical" words is WAY violation of WP:CONSENSUS , WP:OWN, and WP:AGF. LotLE×talk 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• The "List of dog species" example is badly chosen for a "flat" list intro. I explained that in detail above. Even List of dog breeds doesn't have a flat intro. If you want a less troublesome example there is for example List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers. That is currently the "list" example used in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, and in the intro it only adds "of music from many genres" to the repetition of the page name. Maybe there are other and/or better examples. If I think of one I'll let you know. But not "List of dog species". It would need more than two short paragraphs of explaining. And it is simply a bad list name, heading for trouble. Wikipedia shouldn't use it. List of dog breeds is the less cumbersome name, as used in Wikipedia, but even here the intro takes two paragraphs, giving some info on the "breed(s)" concept. --Francis Schonken 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in love with the dog example. In fact, given that all domestic dogs are the same species, and are in fact often cross-fertile with wolves, it seems a bit bad as an example. But we can find something better... just don't f**king keep blanking the good efforts! LotLE×talk 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I object to "(..) the list should not define these terms (...)" – I see no reason why the list intro couldn't contain definitions. Only, such definitions should not constitute a divergence from the normal understanding of the defined terms. In other words, they shouldn't contradict the NPOV/V/NOR definitions of these terms that are or could be given in other Wikipedia articles. That would create a POV fork. To give an example: if the List of Latin emperors of Constantinople would ever be split off from the Latin empire article, there's no way that the list would define a latin Emperor as an Emperor who ruled the Latin empire. Many of them never ruled that empire, but had the title. The central issue is that definitions in the list intro should not redefine concepts in a format specifically only applicable for the list. Otherwise the name of the list should be changed (for example "List of ruling emperors of the Latin Empire" would be a good name if you want to keep those out that only held the title). In this sense there's nothing wrong with the current intro of List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, cited above by LotLE. It doesn't re-define concepts. Instead it points to several non-interchangeable definitions of the concepts, not making a *choice* between these for the purposes of the list. The inclusion criteria I removed from the list ([2]) *did* contain such re-definitions. --Francis Schonken 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

How about WP:OR? The point is that if Macmillan, Routledge, and Metzler's editors have different ideas about what a philosopher is, that doesn't matter much to us. The point is that certain people are listed as a philosopher in these reputable publications. The fact that they are verified as philosophers obviates the need for some wikipedia editor to say "A philosopher is here defined as someone who uses Socratic method" or whatever. I realize this may not apply to all situations, but the reason I wrote this phrase was due to trying to respect the no original research policy. Better suggestions are welcome.--Anthony Krupp 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I object to "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in 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 whom 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." – Apart from internal contradictions in this paragraph (what if reputable sources dispute definitions among themselves?), for me this was the crux of why the Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia proposal was fundamentally irreconcilable with the coordinated WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies. If there are different prominent incompatible definitions of a same concept (which is for example the case for definitions of "homosexuality") the list should avoid to pick one of these definitions (even if that would be the most cited definition), per WP:NPOV: "It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one." If you do that, and the definition in the list differs from the NPOV approach of the Wikipedia articles that define these concepts otherwise, you've created an archetypical example of a POV fork. --Francis Schonken 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with your concerns here, for the reasons I just articulated to your point above. I think the items on the list should generally be verifiable (PolarDeluge has mentioned exceptions, like academic subjects), but the definition of one of the terms in the list title should not be traced to a single source. (Ayn Rand/Hegel/Marx/whoever says a philosopher is X, so that will be what makes a philosopher on our list.) Rather, just say that the list contains philosophers, and then cite Macmillan, who says that A is a philosopher, even though Routledge might not say that A is a philosopher.--Anthony Krupp 19:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

But then we will end up in a massive problem... What about if there is competing views about Rand being a philosopher? Is a single mention in a reputable source enough to warrant her inclusion on the list? In the article about Rand all significant viewpoints can be explored. In a list you cannot, thus you are breaking NPOV. Same problem we will have with List of dictators, etc., unless there is an unambiguos and stringent criteria for inclusion in that list, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I object to "Thus every item on a list should be accompanied by a reference to a reliable, reputable source", while it gives the impression list entries should always be referenced separately. This is nowhere implied by WP:V. There is a host of lists where that would be a completely redundant and obtuse exercise, take for instance List of early imperial Roman consuls. It has a single reference at the bottom of the page. Some more could be given, but not "every item" on the list should be "accompanied by a reference". Lists of Roman consuls can be copied as a whole from many independent sources. Only if some of these sources would diverge (I doubt that would be the case for Roman consuls) individual list entries could get a reference, pointing to the difference in the sources. --Francis Schonken 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is easliy resolvable by stating that "every item on a list should be supported by a reference to a reliable, reputable source" ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I object to Jossi's whitespace additions. Specifically, the whitespaces after a pipe. There is no MoS recommendation about it (and if it were, it should be abandoned). My standard signature reads --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] (--Francis Schonken) and not --[[User:Francis Schonken | Francis Schonken]] (-- Francis Schonken), so no, it is hardcoded *without* the spaces in the wikipedia software. Long ago I already mentioned to Jossi that this sometimes has undesirable effects. Still some days ago I had to correct un-[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) | common name]] (un- common name) to un-[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)|common name]] (un-common name)[3]. I'd like to ask Jossi again to stop these mildly disturbing activities of reformatting whitespace. It is mentioned explicitly in the Wikipedia:semi-bots proposal. I mention that proposal also while it illustrates I'm not always at opposite ends with LotLE on guideline proposals ;-) (nor am I always on opposite ends with Jossi for that matter: I like to quote his "Remember also, that the different core policies of WP work together as a whole. WP:NPOV + WP:V + WP:NOR..." [4] - never understood how come he can't cope with that concept of the "collaborating core content policies" when talking about lists) --Francis Schonken 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave my sig separate for each of these points, so that all of you can feel free to interject your thoughts. And yes, I should have reacted earlier on this talk page regarding the proposals. Sorry. Note however that all of this has been discussed long and in depth in several places, with many more participants in the discussions. --Francis Schonken 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I will need a week to respond to the long exposition... :) Couldn't you just address the specific additions to this guideline? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

? I did... for your convenience I highlighted them now. If the color is too flashy, just change it. --Francis Schonken 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Undid the whitespacing. Will address the other items later in the day. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll also respond soon. I'm very grateful for all of you discussing this here, you each bring up interesting points. Am especially glad to realize that there are other WP list pages... Must sheepishly admit I was not aware of that. Perhaps because WP:LIST doesn't point to the other two pages right at the top! Anyway, I'm now thinking that if WP:LIST is really about formatting, then it should be called List guideline (formatting), just like the other list articles have subtitles in parentheses. It may well be that I was reinventing the wheel here, somewhat. Will return with specific proposals ASAP. Cheers to all,--Anthony Krupp 16:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I've just taken this from the guideline, so that we can discuss it here.--Anthony Krupp 16:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of discussion, but let's really leave the "current best" version in while discussing. Especially since the above paragraph (or something like it) is what gives sense to the section title. LotLE×talk 17:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Let's leave this version in. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And here's another version for us to compare:

Does this version deal with some of the objections raised above? --Anthony Krupp 19:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up new section

I've rewritten the new section, converting it to simple English. Remember, there are kids on Wikipedia too, and persons for whom English is a second language. Be kind to them. I was careful to retain the meaning and spirit of the section.

However, I removed the following sentence to here because it is patent nonsense:

Since wikipedia is a tertiary source, the list should not define these terms (e.g., A philosopher is a person who...), as this would represent original research.

The previous statement is blatantly false. Almost every article on Wikipedia begins with an explanation of what the topic term means. Many even include the etymology of the word. Glossaries, a type of list on Wikipedia, have the primary purpose of presenting the definitions of terms. The above guideline would cripple list lead sections, and would completely disallow glossaries on Wikipedia. A great many lists include definitions in their lead sections, in parenthetical comments, and in annotations. Such a drastic alteration in procedure would need much wider discussion and consensus to change. Established words and their definitions do not constitute original research. --Nexus Seven 10:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

tx! --Francis Schonken 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the fray, Nexus Seven. I think that section two now reads better than before. Still some hammering to do, but you've improved things.--Anthony Krupp 18:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beware of... unclear formulations

Can't we get rid of the "Beware of definitions which are disputed"? First, it sounds like a nanny. Second, and more importantly, it is not clear what is intended by this sentence. It could be read as "if in standard literature on a topic the definition is disputed, Wikipedia can't have lists on these topics". Not really how we're supposed to handle significant published definitions that contradict according to WP:NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, [...]" (my bolding).

If you need examples: I already pointed to the contradicting (and basically incompatible) definitions of homosexuality above. That is in the realm of social sciences. Note however that in natural sciences similar issues exists. For example species classification. Different authors often adhere to different classification systems (which sometimes are incompatible). Wikipedia does not exclude that lists are being made on *combined* species classification systems of different authors. See for example this taxonomy list: Nudibranch#Taxonomy, which effectively mentions "The taxonomy of the Nudibranchia is still evolving". The list is annotated (per standard Wikipedia practice for taxonomy lists): it gives the names of the authors + publication date for each of the possible listed taxonomy subdivisions. --Francis Schonken 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

""if in standard literature on a topic the definition is disputed, Wikipedia can't have lists on these topics". Exactly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, don't exaggerate... What you propose is that, for instance, we dump List of islands of Japan, because the definition of "island of Japan" is disputed. Well, a man died yesterday in that dispute.[5] Reliable sources on the subject point to both Russia and Japan claiming the islands. IMHO, this should not influence Wikipedia's choices in which pages (and lists) we have, and which we don't have. Lists have always been able to cope with such situations, for example List of islands of Japan#The Northern Territories. The dispute is explained (annotated list), and the list continues with dozens of non-disputed islands of Japan. Where is the problem? --Francis Schonken 15:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Islands of Japan" cannot be a disputed term as it is a geographical term. If there is a dispute about a specific member of the list, we have WP:RS and WP:V to resolve it with. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Kudos for your contagious optimism in declaring all disputes over geographical terms ended. Back to reality:

• [...] disputed islands [...]
• Both sides claim the four islands, which Russia calls the southern Kurils and Japan the Northern Territories.
• The dispute has stopped the two nations signing a peace treaty to end WWII.

(source: BBC News, 16 August 2006, Japan fisherman killed by Russia)

WP:RS and WP:V indicate that it is disputed to list these islands as either Japanese or Russian...

If you still insist that "geographical terms cannot be disputed terms", here's another example, from another domain. Wikipedia has several lists of works of Plato (plus a category). Here are two of the lists:

• By tetralogy: "In the list below, works by Plato are marked (1) if there is no consensus among scholars as to whether Plato is the author, and (2) if scholars generally agree that Plato is not the author of the work. Unmarked works are assumed to have been written by Plato."
• Chronological list(s): "The exact order in which Plato's dialogues were written is not known, nor is the extent to which some might have been later revised and rewritten."

No, definitional problems have *never* been an unavoidable decisive factor whether a list was possible at Wikipedia or not. --Francis Schonken 17:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition to Wikipedia:List guideline#List title

Proposing following addition to Wikipedia:List guideline#List title:

For a navigational template used as an embedded list (often called "series box", see for example {{IsaacNewtonSegments}}, {{Princess Royal}},...):

• Make the title section stand out with an appropriate background color (see {{Navbox generic}}).
• Make the title link to the "main" or summary style article of the series.

Anyone having a problem with this? --Francis Schonken 10:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about section 2.2 (lead section)

I think the second paragraph of 2.2 is great. Here's the current first paragraph, about which I have two questions:

"Stand-alone lists are a type of article. All articles should include a lead section, and stand-alone lists are no exception. Even when the meaning of the page's title is obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what is included in the list, based on definitions from reputable sources. Beware of definitions which are disputed. Embedded lists don't always have a lead section, but should in cases where the title is ambiguous."

1. What does it mean that the lead section should describe what is included in the list "based on definitions from reputable sources"? What if Macmillan defines philosopher one way, Routledge another way, etc.? My thought has been that if the source is reputable, as both R and M are in the case of philosophy, then it suffices that both sources name A, B, and C as philosophers. That is, our job in adding to the list is verifying that A is listed as a philosopher in reputable source X; our job is not to also define philosopher according to reputable source X. Is the problem clear? Maybe it would help if someone could bring in an example or two where a list describes its contents "based on definitions from reputable sources". I think that would help me at least understand this better.--Anthony Krupp 13:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I like Jossi's recent removal of the "single-source" sentence. That is, it's one thing if MacMillan says Foo Bar is a philosopher, and Routledge makes no mention of Foo Bar. In that case, the single reliable source is fine for a citation. The worse case is where Routledge specifically says Foo Bar is not a philosopher. That's where it gets tricky, and hopefully a good lead section can describe a general procedure for addressing these cases.

I can perhaps answer Anthony Krupp's (1) to an extent. There has been a new flare up at the List of dictators, which is contentious, as you would expect. One editor made a fork for List of dictators currently in power; I nominated it for AfD, but the attention has brought in some new editors who haven't been as cognizant of the criteria work.

Anyway, to stop rambling: Early in the process, a number of editors found a large number of other reference works that define "dictator". Those references are not dramatically in conflict, though they obviously word the definition somewhat differently, and possibly conflict at the edges. A number of really meticulous editors did a very careful synthesis of these several sources, to provide a point-by-point set of criteria that are used for purposes of that list. Along the way, less good ideas were to pick one outside reference more-or-less at random and/or to simply list multiple (possibly conflicting) external definitions. These approaches are either skewed or create an indiscernable mess that is almost as bad as no criteria at all.

Now understand that what we did is very different from original research. We do not simply repeat other sources verbatim, but we also do not stray far from the spirit of the combined sources. Some editors misunderstood this, thinking that original research meant any cognition on the part of editors, which is not what it means. At the same time, this is an awfully good example of a case where a single-source is really worthless. Just about any political leader has been called a dictator by someone. Simply finding that the word has been used is pretty much worthless... what works fairly well, however, is insisting on fullfillment of the specific synthetic criteria listed. Foo Bar was indeed called a dictator (by partisan, but not "extremist", source A), but Foo Bar specifically does not fulfill criteria number 3... and that is required for the specific sense we are using for the list. LotLE×talk 16:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What you're explaining here is that you had a particularily difficult problem, and that you dodged WP:NPOV to get it solved:

1. I think it can be solved without dodging the core content policies. Let's use this talk page to search for such solution.
2. Whatever the particular solution for the particularily touchy "list of dictators" issue, the WP:LIST guideline should not contain recommendations that steer for evading WP:NPOV and the other core content policies for lists in general.

--Francis Schonken 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What I explained above is a case where we had a particularly difficult problem, and we solved it by a very careful adherance to NPOV! Please cut out the ridiculous insults, OK? I know you've long had a weird anathema to acutally, y'know, letting anyone know what should be included in a list... but the simple fact is that for many lists, clear criteria are necessary to maintain WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Absent them, lists are simply free-for-all opinion wars. LotLE×talk 08:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Compare to what I wrote above on this page:

[...] for me this was the crux of why the Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia proposal was fundamentally irreconcilable with the coordinated WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies. If there are different prominent incompatible definitions of a same concept (...) the list should avoid to pick one of these definitions (even if that would be the most cited definition), per WP:NPOV: "It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one." (further:) If you do that, and the definition in the list differs from the NPOV approach of the Wikipedia articles that define these concepts otherwise, you've created an archetypical example of a POV fork.

Of course this applies to the "list of dictators" too. --Francis Schonken 08:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly: According to your proposal, every list would simply rely on the subjective impressions and original research of each individual editor, with no basis to decide who might be right or wrong about whether a given item was eligible to be included. Every list becomes a purely editorial statement, randomly collected according to the whims of whatever editor passes by. What you suggest is a complete abandonment of NPOV, and a complete reliance on... not even really original research, since that would suggest "research"... a reliance on whimsical first impressions. LotLE×talk 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you try to say. Anyway WP:NPOV applies to lists as to any other page in main namespace, that includes "It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one."

Re. "(...) decide who might be right or wrong (...)" — Please stop the "truth" logic, per WP:V, "verifiability, not truth". You got a detailed explanation about that by SlimVirgin in Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 2#We are mostly in agreement, I think, "I precisely want to stay away from coming up with our own definition." – "It does mean, as you say, that we'll have lists containing different definitions, but that's a problem we have in Wikipedia in general i.e. we report what reputable sources say, whether or not it's true [...]" – etc.

In short, Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia should not be used as a guideline, while it is in contradiction with the core content policies. If you try to use that essay as if it were a guideline, it should better be removed. --Francis Schonken 18:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

2. "Beware of definitions which are disputed." Other than getting goosebumps ("The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!" / "His flashing eyes, his floating hair!"), what's an editor supposed to do with this? Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 13:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of Municipalities

I am attempting to establish standards for the lists of municipalities (Category:Lists of municipalities), for those lists have multiple variations (naming, structure, content, etc.). I thought that it could be a good idea to make them more alike. I have created a discussion concerning that. Is there a more adequate place for that discussion? Should it be advertised somewhere?--Húsönd 22:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC is usually a good place to start. This probably falls under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography, so you could make a listing for your discussion there. There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and it's list of related projects, you might want to post a message on their talk pages asking for comments to be listed on the talk page you set up. You can also check their pages to see if maybe this has been brought up before, or something similar that might help you. You can also post a message at the Village pump. Hope that helps! -- Ned Scott 00:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Húsönd 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standardized list entry style

Question: Is there any standardized and acceptable way to let drive-by-editors add entries to a list according to a specific agreed-upon convention (i.e. to maintain uniformity)?
For example, if the list is a timeline, and the maintainers agree on a 'present tense' style for each event (vs. past tense) and wish to keep all new entries in the same format, what is the recommended way to achieve it? Obviously something could be on the top of the Talk page, but many drive-by editors may not bother to read it. Putting a small guide on top of the article page or even a link to the Talk page may violate all kinds of WP principles. Whatever the solution, there should be a common way to achieve it across WP. Any help here would be appreciated. If this is mentioned somewhere and I missed it I apologize in advance. Thanks, Crum375 01:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

For those that are interested, we are trying to solve the issue this way. Any comments would be welcome. Crum375 13:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List Namespace

A discussion is going on here to introduce seperate namespace. A request to bugzilla (7561) also have been made for this. Your response is invited on the proposal page. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 20:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List vs Category

Can we strengthen the notion that having a category is no reason for deleting a list on the main page? This rationale is always used for deleting lists when a category exists, and I am directed to this page, but there is nothing here that says that. If the language was a bit stronger it would be helpful. Also in lists of people including birth and death year would make a list of people inherently useful since you can sort on year of birth or search for the youngest, oldest, first born, first dead quickly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

From the intro of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes:

[Categories, lists, and article series boxes] should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other.

I suppose that was what you were looking for. Don't know who directed you to the list guideline, it would have made more sense to direct you to a guideline that compares categories with lists.

That being said, each of these grouping techniques has its own "maintenance" characteristics: for each page (be it category page or list page) the benefit of having the page is compared with the effort needed for its maintenance. Sometimes a category is easier, and the list has no real added value, or in other cases a category would cause problems where a list wouldn't: in these cases the community can choose to have one of these types of pages, and not the other. But in many cases maintaining both is more than justified, because each has its specific advantages, and the disadvantages of maintainability don't outweigh that. But, unless a content policy (WP:NPOV, WP:V,...) gives a binding indication, that is often a community decision. --Francis Schonken 10:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re birth and death years in lists: I'm with you there. Note that for disambiguation pages (which are a highly formalised type of lists), this is inscribed in the MoS, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#People. I'd support to adopt that as a general principle for (most) people lists. Not always, however. And some lists would be more useful when indicating years in office I suppose (compare the little list in template:Princess Royal). --Francis Schonken 10:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Thats why I have been converting lists to tables, and using the sort version. They have spreadsheet-like functions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see leaving the decision to the vagaries of a vote on a case to case basis as being useful. It would save much time and effort to say that both are complimentary, and that having a category is no reason to delete a list. Its like arguing over which is more useful: a table of contents; or an index in a book, and relying on a vote book by book. I am sure votes would be cast in favor of one or the other, yet books always have both. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about redlinks

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum for this question. If it isn't, I'd appreciate a point in the right direction. I removed over 100 redlinks from the List of progressive rock bands and musicians because it didn't seem appropriate for a list to have so many redlinks. Another editor objected on the grounds that many of the bands were important but obscure and that the list also could serve as a list of needed articles for progressive rock bands. I appreciate those points, but my concerns is that when a list item is a redlink, there is no way for somebody viewing the list to know if the redlink represents a notable band that doesn't have an article yet or a band that completely fails WP:N. In a case where there were two or three redlinks it might not matter all that much, but this was a huge number of redlinks. Is there a policy regarding redlinks in lists? I read the project page and the archives and couldn't find anything. Thank you. janejellyroll 10:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a similar issue with List of illustrators, which was basically a magnet for anyone (generally anon IPs with no other contributions) to add entries which nobody could verify. I took the approach discussed on the talk page there - if they don't have an article, remove from the list. An exception to that would be if they were notable but didn't have an article yet, in which case references would need to be provided for inclusion into the list.

If you look at the list before cleanup you'll see how many redlinks there are. What you can't see is that a huge proportion of the bluelinks go to articles which are not about illustrators at all, just namesakes of non-notable (or at least unreferenced) illustrators.

I think that list before the cleanup had no value at all to anyone and was totally unencyclopedic, but is now worthy of inclusion. I agree with the approach you've taken with List of progressive rock bands and musicians, although it's worth pointing out that without constant attention, it won't take very long to return to its previous state. Better guidelines would certainly help with dealing with objections, if this approach represents consensus, which it seems to from what I've read. CiaranG 12:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted this suggestion on the List of progressive rock bands and musicians, but it certainly has broader applicability for most WP Lists.

A number of us working on the List of photographers were struggling with red-linked names being added to the List, which was becoming increasingly diffult to maintain/verify (and the subject of vandalism/spurious entries). So we reserved space on the article's talk page for red-linked names (which could then be easily verified, and removed altogether if they were not noteworthy - or removed and added to the main List when articles had been created for them). When a red-linked name is found on the main list, we simply shift it to the talk page, check the notablility of the name on the Internet and several authoritative online/text reference tools and provide those research links as applicable. Then we wait to see if the red-linked name turns blue, or go ahead and write a stub or lengthier article if the research is promising and we feel so moved. The same solution would probably work for this List, too. What do you think? Pinkville 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan, and it seems to be working in practice. CiaranG 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We independently reached the same conclusion at List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft, and while at it, we decided to also agree on other issues, such as the format of each entry, eligibility criteria, etc. We ended up creating a dedicated list inclusion guideline, which is now a sub-page of the Talk page, with a pointer to it from the Talk page. We also created a 'holding zone', another Talk page sub-page, where we keep redlinked (but otherwise apparently eligible) items. Crum375 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interrupted Numbered Lists

How would you go about formatting a list where the list is interrupted by text?

Thanks, The freddinator 16:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind - I got it.The freddinator 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)