User talk:Sidatio/Proto WP:LIST

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Lists (But Were Afraid to Ask)

This page is Help:Lists, Manual of style (lists), Guideline (list content), and some other stuff all at the same time. Pare it down to a single one of those concepts.--Father Goose 02:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godalmighty, it is the existing list guideline. No wonder the situation is so muddled. And no wonder I've never bothered to read that page.--Father Goose 02:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it definitely needs paring! Any suggestions? Sidatio 03:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More or less my above advice: try to separate its content into three pages: technical help (like Help:Table), limited to technical formatting advice; MoS page, covering non-technical formatting and style; and a content guideline, covering list scope, criteria, etc. -- which I believe is the part you're trying to work on. Try to see if people will agree to splitting that out first and foremost, so that it's not a combined style guideline and content guideline.--Father Goose 06:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there's already a Help:List that splits off into Wikipedia-specific list formatting. Splitting into three pages might be a little confusing for newbies. Also, if we manage to accomplish the greater task of bringing the categorization process up to speed, this section might have to be torn down and re-written anyway. Maybe just bolting on the information would suffice for now... Sidatio 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An enormous page is more daunting to newbies and veterans alike than three better-focused ones. Just have them link to each other. I've just now been bold and removed the Help:List stuff that migrated into WP:LIST.--Father Goose 18:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold indeed. Thanks! Sidatio 19:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Criteria for inclusion in lists" and "Lists content" sections should really be in their own guideline; a content guideline instead of a style guideline. They're very minimal, though. I'd recommend just taking those two sections and building a full, independent, "list content proposal" using them as a starting point. Then watch it die amidst heated debate. But a worthy, even necessary, thing to attempt anyway.--Father Goose 23:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You all might want to check out this essay: WP:OLIST. Please, edit it all you want! :). Bulldog123 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we borrowed the example for Agenda-oriented lists as an example of too many inclusion criteria. It's a good overview, and it was very helpful in the formation of our prototype. Thanks! Sidatio 16:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About "joins" of list inclusion criteria

I think bolding and stating as an absolute that a list needs "3 criteria" for inclusion (to avoid amorphous masses) is too strict. For example, "Noteable Humans" >> "Noteable Americans" >> "Noteable Latvians" >> "Noteable Livs" -- yet by the stated guideline, these all count as just one criterion toward three. Lists should be given a chance to develop from fewer inclusion criteria as appropriate. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every guideline has its exceptions. Also, the bold print is just to show what changes are proposed and where it's proposed they be placed in the guideline - it won't actually be in bold print when finished.

The reason I suggested 3 criteria as a stand-alone for people-related lists (and people-related lists only) is to avoid things like "List of Chinese women". Now, if someone wanted to come along and create a list of notable women from the Vatican, well, that's another story and a case could be made for exception. But the 3 criteria rule would just apply to people-related lists. To impose it on, say, geography-related lists would definitely be too restrictive. Sidatio 02:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that's no good -- the 3/2 criteria rule shouldn't be a rule at all, at most a suggestion. List of Nobel laureates is perfectly appropriate as-is, for instance, although it does have supplemental sub-lists. If the aim is to keep lists under X entries in most cases, then phrase the rule that way, with the "criteria" as suggestions on how to keep things reasonable.--Father Goose 02:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression guidelines were suggestions, not really "rules" in the classic sense. That was the approach I was taking, anyway. Like I said, there are always exceptions. Sidatio 03:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have a "this is how we do things" role, and can be referenced to back up an action, so they have quite a bit of binding power. You don't want to get them wrong. Treat what you're writing as though it were an iron-clad rule, and if it's wrong, fix it, or change it altogether. You've got to get just about everybody to agree with what you come up with. It can't be wrong; it can't be "approximate" -- if you really want everyone to go along with it. This is a far steeper task than just coming up with functional ideas -- and even that is very hard. If you want to become a shaper of policy, or even guidelines, be aware: you've stepped in it.--Father Goose 06:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I think saying I've "stepped in it" is a bit strong, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. :-)

I don't think List of Nobel Laureates is a good example in this case, because it's already exclusive by nature; very rarely do you get more than 14 or 15 entries for said list in any given year. Also, since it's already got natural subdivides (by award category), it would take minimal effort to split the list in the event it got too big. I think Pēters J. Vecrumba's view of this particular issue makes more sense from a practical standpoint. By all means, a list should be given the chance to develop from less criteria, and exceptions can and should be made in certain cases. From a discussion and debate standpoint, it seems making an exception for a guideline by loosening its standard a notch would meet with far less opposition and animosity than trying to restrict that standard a notch. Hence, the "3/2" approach. For example, how many notable doctors from San Marino can there be? I don't think a list like that would be a burden at all, and I think a person would be hard-pressed to make a viable argument against such a list having only two inclusion criteria. However, a list of notable Chinese politicians could get pretty big pretty quick, and would probably end up being held to the 3 criteria standard.

As to writing an "iron-clad rule": The discussion is intended to be only about amending a guideline, which by definition is flexible and allows for exceptions. From WP:GUIDE:

“

A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

”

Having said that, I'm all for better re-wording of the proposed language additions to better allow for exceptions, if that's the issue we're having here. Let's move this section of the discussion to the main discussion page and see what the others think. Sidatio 12:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Posting this in two places to make sure you see it) By "stepped in it", I mean no criticism: I'm saying that you're wading into something that's going to get your shoes very dirty. This is the easy part: brainstorming. It gets much harder just around the corner.--Father Goose 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]