Wikipedia talk:List guidelines reborn

I just created this essay. Please discuss any changes, comments, or suggestions here. AdamBiswanger1 03:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a lengthy essay, I like to comment on a few of the points the current version (15 July 2006):

(2.) Personally, I don't think list of people by name is unmangeable (somewhat related cited "List of human beings", but for those with a Wikipedia article), even if it's a very challenging task. Besides, (2.) may imply that all lists must be potentially exhaustive (which they shouldn't). Obviously, we won't have a "List of [all] human beings" already now, but we do have (non exhaustive) lists of people by all types of occupations, I don't see why we shouldn't.

(3.) I doubt there should be specific criteria that a list must necessarily be non-mergable. All stubs could probably be merged. Are there specific lists you need help to merge?

Point (1.) is tricky, but I doubt that we should restrict lists to those that are "obviously and self-evidently related" to an article, besides I fail to see the point of the sample, as a list detailing architectural aspects of legislative buildings would be good to have, even if it won't necessarily be "by construction material".

(4.) is somewhat related, but as long as the lists are verifiable, I don't see why we shouldn't have List_of_United_States_Presidential_pets or List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_middle_name.

(5.) As the consensus is that categories and lists are similar, but not mutually exclusive, there is no point in bringing this up once more.

Point (6.) is already covered in the existing version sufficiently.

Would you provide samples of disputes on AfD you are trying to resolve? Problematic things like Baum that some call "list" already fail current guidelines. -- User:Docu

• I realize that many of the criteria are obvious, but I'd like to include them anyway because this will make the list of restrictions on a list complete. I'm not in love with 2 or 3, and we could change them, but 1 is the main point of the essay. I'll take a minute to explain it a little more:

The obviously and self-editently related clause relates to a situation like this. a "List of songs by Bruce Springsteen" would be perfectly acceptable, but we sure couldn't have an article simply about "songs by Bruce Sprinsteen". Instead, we recognize that songs are the natural and consequential output of Springsteen, and "songs" are naturally and self-evidently related to a musician. The same goes with "Ford" and "List of cars made by Ford". As for you "List of presidential pets" and "presidents by middle name", I think one would fail and one would pass. An article on presidential pets? sure. An article on the middle names of US presidents? I think not...

I actually like 5 and I think it is well-worded and powerful in AfD discussions, and I realized that 6 is already covered, but to achieve a complete guideline one has to include everything. I also think this is better worded, because I would like to restrict "necessarily" controversial topics, not ones that require value judgments but are obvious. Unfortunetly, I'll be gone until late sunday, so I won't be able to respond until then. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 13:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions

• Move this page to Wikipedia:Notability (lists);
• Then, list it in the "active proposals and essays" section of Template:Notabilityguide;
• Change the boilerplate & shortcut template from {{essay}} and {{shortcut|[[WP:LGR]]}} to {{proposed|[[WP:LGR]]}};
• Add the {{Notabilityguide}} template to the page;
• Have a look at Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia, a comparable prior attempt (no consensus reached) - non-contested parts of the content of that prior proposal might be merged with this new proposal;
• Add {{merge}} templates to both guideline proposals.

Actually, I think I'll already proceed with the 3rd and 6th of these ideas. --Francis Schonken 08:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Value judgments

• Lists may not center around a subject that contains necessarily controversial value judgments.

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)

That part of the guideline was added recently with no discussion. I think the matter issue is that lists should have clear, objective criteria. -Will Beback 03:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

True--it's hard to do that, though, and I fear that many legitimate lists will be tossed asunder because of their inability to be defined. AdamBiswanger1 04:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If "car flops" had an objective criteria (# sold, for exmaple) then it wouldn't be a bad list. It isn't the "value judgment" which is a problem, it is the lack of a verifiable criteria. -Will Beback 04:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this approach appropriate?

Shouldn't we be discussing how to change the existing guideline rather than writing a totally new guideline from scratch? I was about to make some suggestions to the list guideline, and then I discovered this policy proposal. It's lucky I spotted it actually, which makes me wonder how many people have missed it.

It appears that this topic should be discussed on the current guideline's talk page, rather than buried one level deeper where many people will not find it (or bother to go). There are too many dark and hidden corners of Wikipedia already. Let's not add another.

Also, each of the criteria you have listed deserves its own discussion, which makes the talk page of the current guideline all the better as the forum for these issues. I'll see you on the main talk page. --Polar Deluge 16:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says: "Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it." I'm a bit confused as how these guidelines would fit in with the others, if one is supposed to replace the other or they're both supposed to exist? -- Ned Scott 02:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I would agree, but what I have proposed here is not an amendment, but a complete change. The current guideline is incredibly vague, and does not lay down specific criteria--this proposal lays down concrete rules that each list must follow to be acceptable. Taken together as an inseparable set of principles, the criteria on this proposal, I believe, are close to perfect in defining what is acceptable for a list. AdamBiswanger1 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It still needs to be discussed via the other guideline's talk page, or setup a sub page with a notice box so people know what's going on. -- Ned Scott 02:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done so. Thanks for your input AdamBiswanger1 03:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Suggest you move this to a sub-page of the current guideline and place a In your face notice box prominently at the head of that talk page as well as a section notice in postfixed order, as you're effectively holding a 'constitutional convention' to replace the old with the new, rather like sending delegates to ammend the old... who decide to trash the whole thing. OK, so that's something of an American tradition, but not one on wikipedia! Apropo notices made on the VP and Notices BB I hope? Seems to have little 'action' if it's been properly promulgated. Spam notified the list of prior contributors to either the page or talk? That would be a Right Thing with such a radical change proposal.

That said, it is strongly frowned on for an editor to make a wholesale replacement of article content, it's been the cause of more than one RFC and mediations that I've seen, and this has the same problem of tracking successive iterative changes... which are much more visible as one saves and changes, than requiring people to have their 'heads into the problem' as deeply as you do while you are editing inside your passionate conviction that change is needed.

So, not only are you asking for time to consider from volunteers, you are asking for a huge block of time to compare both 'gestalts' that differ widely in language and presentation. That's a lot to ask—especially as busy as summer vacation season is for most people!!!

I'd advise you draft a revised version (Iteratively, with lots of separate saves) of the current page so people could quibble about interative diffs in a history record, or better yet do so with others helping, using this as a withdrawn guideline and thus the whole of the editors involving themselves can address each change you and others evolve with links to such a record.

Place an {Inuse} template on the current page and link it to the new sub-page overhaul process as a notice... but please do not ask folks to parse and puruse a completed version and expect them to have your focus, sharpened as it is by a passion of some sort. In sum, that would be a better approach, a more courteously considerate approach, and not be flawed by being your sole creation.

In sum I think this should be withdrawn all together in favor of such a wide open process—it is still good work and still useful as a corpus of text to compare and contrast with a more iterative and less radical amendment process. Regards, // FrankB 15:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Undoubtedly this proposal would fare much better on the talk page of WP:LINK, but from a logistical standpoint I don't see much of a difference. There is a talk page, with just about 30 requested changes, and this one would most certainly lose its identity if it were thrown into the mix as such. I "advertised" it on the talk page, "advertised" it on my user page, and quite unrealistically I hope that it will gain some attention beginning slowly, and then increasing exponentially with the incipient respect and stuture of the essay, but I also realize that some Wikipedians can be quite content with their familiar and cozy guidelines.

But, perhaps you're right. My only concern is that I don't want to be percieved by fellow editors as shoving this down their throats--I wouldn't cause so much of a fuss if I just wanted attention, and I truly think this is for the best.

While I ponder the logistical operations necessary in this undertaking, do you have any ideas for an "in-your-face" notice? AdamBiswanger1 15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You are already dangerously close to being perceived as "shoving this down their throats", because of this strategy you have chosen with a seperate page. This discussion belongs on the talk page of the existing guideline, or as others have stated above this page could be moved to a subpage of the current guideline, with a prominent in your face notice on that guideline (and its talk page). --Polar Deluge 10:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories

It would be nice to something about categories. I see lots of lists being deleted (quite sensibly) on the basis that "that's what categories are for", but WP:CLS doesn't lay down any guidelines on this. Perhaps something on the lines of Can not be reasonably duplicated by use of categories Yomangani 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually criterion #5 addresses this. "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" AdamBiswanger1 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't believe I missed that: it's in there twice - that's exactly what I meant. Yomangani 09:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries : ) AdamBiswanger1 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I already addressed this issue on the existing guideline's talk page, but you seem to be bypassing the established process for changing a guideline. Therefore, I shall repost my reply to this issue here:

• 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 the page's 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 (e.g., 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 10:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing discussions are already underway on the existing guideline's talk page

It is standard Wikipedia practice to propose changes to a guideline on that guideline's talk page. I've addressed each issue from this draft as well as a previously proposed draft on Wikipedia talk:List guideline, and humbly request that you continue this discussion there. --Polar Deluge 10:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Vocalists aren't musicians?

I know this is just an example, but still: "it would be improper to merge "African vocalists" with "African musicians", because the two are distinct entities". They are? I know quite a few opera singers who would be very angry at the suggestion that vocalists aren't musicians. User:Angr 10:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

While being a vocalist involves musical talent, perhaps even to the degree of a regular musician, to me, the word "musician" implies someone who plays an instrument. If you would like to find a better example, feel free to be bold and change it. AdamBiswanger1 16:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)