Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Required(?) selection criteria

It’s always been my understanding that § Selection criteria denotes rules, and § Common selection criteria gives a partial list of examples of following those rules. Can other editors confirm or deny this? And if my understanding is wrong, then it’s just confusingly presented, so can we get a consensus to edit the section to make it more clear? Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The "Common selection criteria" is clearly written to be example rules, not rules that apply universally. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't frame it as an "example" but rather the standard/typical/"common" ways the rules are applied. But not "required", no. There are times that it makes sense for a list to use another inclusion criteria, but there should be a good reason for it. "Examples" makes it sound like there are a bunch of other ways to generally interpret/apply the rules that are no more or less in line with consensus than the CSC, which is not the case. What's written here isn't arbitrary, after all -- it grew out of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:MOS, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: WP:N contains WP:NNC… did you mean WP:WEIGHT? If so, fair enough. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I did mean WP:N. The relationship is that whether or not a subject has an article is, as articulated by WP:CSC, connected to whether or not it should appear in a stand-alone list. But WP:WEIGHT is relevant, too, of course, since an existing article presumably cites reliable sources -- sources which establish weight in relation to a redlink that comes with no sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It is important to remember that all our rules have occasional exceptions... and that WP:Ignore all rules is actually a Policy. There are many "shoulds" to Wikipedia... there are very few "musts". Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem here. The "Selection criteria" section sets out a guideline of general applicability (if you want to call that a "rule"). The "Common selection criteria" subsection indicates some of the more common selection criteria. It's plain English; there's no need to reach for some unreasonable interpretation. KISS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

MOS content guideline

Is it even appropriate for § Selection criteria—a section about content—to be included in a style guideline? (ArbCom, for one, has stated that “[Style guides] do not affect content, but rather how that content is presented.”) Should this section be moved to another page? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see the point, in theory, but where would you put it? We have too many separate guidelines and policies as it is, leading to a bureaucracy problem that is already daunting and very off-putting to many would-be editors. People shouldn't have to read a whole bunch of different pages to figure out how/why list articles are done here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:WikiProject Lists? But you have a point. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
PS: The same observation applies to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists. My argument in response to the ArbCom bit is that lists are a form of presentation of content. It's reasonable for MOS:SAL to provide guidelines on what to present in this format, vs. to write a regular article about. MOS's guidance here isn't affecting what information may be included in Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
"MOS's guidance here isn't affecting what information may be included in Wikipedia" - Oh but it is. Lapadite (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Lapadite is correct; editors are citing this style guideline to justify deleting or including unique content in standalone lists, which isn’t remotely an issue of style. If the text were moved to some page about article content, this wouldn’t be an issue. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess what should be in the list should be in a WP:IINFO-like place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You could (maybe) move it to a Notability SNG, but that wouldn't change the OP's complaint that the sentences in LSC are being interpreted in a way that includes or excludes material. Complaining about the location of the sentences is a red herring, because the location doesn't change the content of the guideline. The OP actually wants the sentences changed.
Lapadite, on the other hand, wants to discover that WP:Advice pages directly addresses the question at WPFILM, by saying that WikiProjects don't own articles and therefore can't dictate the content of articles within their scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Lapadite77, you mean. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, see the discussion; that was pointed out multiple times. As to your other point, the OP did not say they want the sentences changed. Their concern (as well as mine) is: "that a style guideline is dictating content. No MOS page should ever be cited in including or excluding content, unless it’s a style question of whether to present the content invisibly". Stating that "the location doesn't change the content of the guideline" is disregarding the issue - a style guideline should not be recommending what content should or shouldn't be included in an article (as it is being interpreted). As you said, that's not up to Wikiprojects either; It's per WP's core content policies and five pillars. By having restrictive content recommendations it is influencing some Wikiproject editors to dictate what other editors should or shouldn't source in articles per a supposed Wikiproject agreement on the universal application of a MOS content recommendation (in the process ignoring core policies and guidelines that support such inclusion of reliably-sourced content). WP:POLCON is also relevant here. Lapadite (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
And if LSC/CSC were instead located somewhere like WP:Notability (lists) as WAID suggested (or implied?), I doubt this would be nearly so contentious. I’d still take issue with restrictive interpretations of CSC, but at least it’d be somewhere it had business being. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
For it to be legitimate, a part of WP policies and guidelines (community consensus), it needs to go throughout the proposal process (which I doubt it would pass; no majority is going to advocate blanket content restrictions that go against the principles of core PAG). It really has no place in a MOS guideline. I'd like to see the discussion here that led to this being included in the MOS. Lapadite (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The section’s been here in some form since the page was created in 2003. And that was fine until it was named a “style guideline” in 2006 (which a month later made it part of the MOS itself), apparently without first (or ever) moving or removing material that didn’t belong in a style guideline. (Note: These are the results of a cursory history search. I may easily have missed something important.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It may be a red herring, but the 'what' should be in a content guideline/policy, the how here. The context is however not going to change without a policy discussion about that context. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

the OP's complaint that the sentences in LSC are being interpreted in a way that includes or excludes material
— User: WhatamIdoing

If the text were moved to some page about article content, this wouldn’t be an issue.
— User:74.141.182.82

I have not complained about any sentence(s) here. My complaint is that a style guideline is dictating content. No MOS page should ever be cited in including or excluding content, unless it’s a style question of whether to present the content invisibly. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
See also "I’d still take issue with restrictive interpretations of CSC". Neither the title of the guideline, nor the particular category that the page is placed in, actually affect the interpretation of the material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you meant {{tq}} instead of {{xt}}. And yes, it would, but if you can figure out how to interpret it as a style guideline that doesn’t affect content, go for it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to making a public proposal for moving the selection criteria out of this style guideline and into a content guideline? (Meaning, are there any reasons not to have that discussion?) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that the guideline has grown beyond a simple "MOS"? If so, I have a very simple solution... just drop the initials MOS from the title... which would give us "WP:Stand-alone lists" (which is currently used as a redirect for the guideline). Just take the letters "MOS" out of the title, and the issue resolves itself without having to change anything else. While it is arguably inappropriate for a "style guide" to discuss broader issues, there is no reason why a broader guideline can't include discussion of style issues. Blueboar (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
And replace {{MoS-guideline}} at the top. I have no objections to this. Anyone else? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I hope Lapadite77 and the anon happy that it's been renamed, and is now mostly a content guideline with some style and naming advice in it, excluding precisely the same content it was before. LOL. While I agree with the rename and worked on the reorganization, because it made sense to do so from clarity perspective, it was a quixotic exercise from the point of view of their inclusionism vs. deletionism concerns. The whole "how dare a style guideline offer content guidance" wild hare was kind of pointlessly litigious to me, and misses the fact that MOS has always contained a fair amount of content advice, and no one cares. There is no policy anywhere that MOS cannot do so, while there is one against anti-WP:COMMONSENSE over-interpretationalist nit-picking.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
SMcCandlish the concerns are because there is a lot of Wikilawyering and bureaucracy surrounding a strict adherence to such content "recommendations", particularly the first (interpreted as a rule by several WP:FILM editors). Lapadite (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
And that hasn't changed. I think the other conversation going on, below the RM, can address that. My point here is that a campaign to relocate anything content-related outside of MOS's "influence" doesn't really do anything with regard to such concerns (in this one case, it's probably produced a more coherent document, but that's just coincidence; another move of that sort [I won't suggest where, per WP:BEANS] could easily have the opposite effect. BTW: The very rationale that was used in this little WP:LOCALCONSENSUS RM, that virtually no one paid any attention to, could be used to invert it: Some content guideline has no business dictating style or titling advice. See how that works? It's counterproductive territorial chestbeating, ultimately even more pointless than it might look, because there isn't actually anyone with a territory to defend – we're all the same editors working on the same pages that tell the same editors the same advice about the same kind of articles.

A more likely outcome of this sort of thing is fragmenting of conceptually related advice pages ("what to do about stand-alone lists") into micro-guidelines that are separate and hard to find and relate to one another ("what to do about content in stand-alone lists", "how to style stand-alone lists", "naming conventions for stand-alone lists"). Total waste of time an energy. And it's happened before, leading to messes we're still trying to clean up; see the hatnote pile at the top of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles of works, and see the ~2 years to took to clean up outright WP:POVFORKing between MOS:LIFE, WP:NCFAUNA, WP:NCFLORA, and various other pages, as two examples that prove the point. Ultimately it does not matter what this page's name is or whether there's an MOS banner on top of it (well, I can think of one, relating to something MOS says near the top of it, but it would require a bad-faith assumption of WP:GAMING to go there, so I'm not). I guess to satisfy the sticklers, we should stick an MOS banner in the middle of this at #Style, and a NC banner toward the end at #Titles [sigh].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Straight-up recycling of another list

Most valuable sports clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article takes a Forbes list and simply restates the first 15 or so entries - no more to it than that. I remember seeing somewhere that a Wikipedia list shouldn't just recycle someone else's list, but like so many things in life, finding that policy or guideline again has proven too much for me. So I'm here to ask, is this an appropriate article, and, does anyone know what I might've been reading that one time long ago, so I can go back and read it again? Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I would resolve the issue by expanding the article beyond just a rehash of the Forbes list. Are their other (externally published) lists (ie lists created by other sources) that we could use to support this one... I would be especially interested in sources that differ from Forbes (perhaps because they use a different calculation to determine "value"). At a minimum it needs an expanded introductory paragraph (I am assuming Forbes bases its list on total revenue generated, but since there are other ways to calculate "value", it would be helpful to give some explanation). In other words, I think this might be a topic that works better as a text article, with a list (or perhaps more than one list) embedded within it. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that it's pretty bare-bones. I'm not sure how much there is to add, really - it's just one of those click-through-the-photos lists, written by a staffer, that have become so popular the last few years. JohnInDC (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC: "Common selection criteria" ambiguity

The subsection § Common selection criteria appears to be a little ambiguous in intent. I don’t find it ambiguous myself—I read it as “these are what we usually end up doing”—but some editors have interpreted it rather differently, as “these are your only options.” So whichever way it’s meant to be, could we add a short explanation to that subsection, above the list? And is there any reason that list is presented #ordered rather than *unordered?

(Note: Some of this was briefly discussed earlier, but no resolution was reached.)

—67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

An RfC should really have a clearer question and/or objective. I suggest removing the rfc template and just opening this as a talk page thread.
The CSC is what most clearly fits with existing policies and guidelines (WP:NOT being a big one, but also WP:SPAM, WP:N, WP:V, etc.). It's not set in stone, but should be used by default unless there's a compelling reason to use another criteria. In practice, a lot of lists employ other kinds of inclusion criteria, but a lot of the time you see a list that doesn't go by something like the CSC -- especially with non-exhaustive lists -- it's because nobody has cared enough to hold it to that standard or based on arguments that tend to have a weak-at-best basis in policy (e.g. "it's useful" or a general distaste for the concept of notability).
So it's not "these are your only options", but it's also not "these are what we usually end up doing", because as a guideline it's prescriptive rather than descriptive. In other words, it's not "what we usually end up doing" but "how things should generally be done".
Guidelines like this one are meant to leave a little bit of ambiguity. It leads to disagreement and confusion, but also allows for flexibility in less "common" cases. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It means "these are what we usually end up doing". That's why it says "common selection criteria", not "sole and exclusive list of acceptable selection criteria". This ought to be obvious, but if it's not, it would be easy enough to add something like "These are the most popular selection criteria on the English Wikipedia, but they are not the only possible choices." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @WhatamIdoing: Are you choosing from OP's two selections or responding to me as well? I agree that's the closer of the two interpretations, but don't actually think it's appropriate either. Stated that way, it's just a description of historical trends, turning it into a guideline that doesn't provide guidance (guidance, of course, being about what to do not about what has happened). The guidelines are based on past discussions, but in an attempt to use those past discussions to pave a way forward. It's about the reason why it's common. I'm not saying we should implement anything rigid because list topics vary so much that there needs to be flexibility, but the point here is to provide guidance based on how stand-alone lists fit in with existing Wikipedia policies/guidelines/consensus. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I am choosing from the OP's two options.
        Additionally, I disagree with your claim that an accurate description of "what has happened" is not suitable for a guideline. In fact, "what has happened", or more precisely, what experienced editors have done across many, many thousands of articles, is the primary and most reliable source of policy and guidelines, because it is the best indication of consensus. (If you've ever heard the phrase "descriptive, not prescriptive" in policy discussions, that's what the editor meant.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
        • (many edit conflicts -- forgot to hit save earlier :) ) -- It seems to me that if something exists as a guideline at all, that means experienced editors have done it this way and there is a consensus that it should be a guideline, but wording it that way in the text of the guideline just isn't effective communication. The guideline should talk about stand-alone lists and how to edit them, not what editors have said about stand-alone lists and how people have edited them in the past -- all that is implied (and making it explicit doesn't clarify anything about how to write stand-alone lists for anyone who doesn't know as much). The point should be to take the product of those discussions and use it to provide guidance to other editors for future decisions. Several times I've seen people dismiss the CSC because it's talking about what's "common" and therefore means nothing when it comes to particular article X that we're talking about today. As written, it could just as easily be understood as offering an idea for an inclusion criteria you could use in case you can't think of one yourself. We know that in the culture of Wikipedia, because everything operates according to consensus, past discussions inform how things should be done in the future, but to anyone else it's just talking about the past. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Rhododendrites: By “what we usually end up doing,” I meant it’s commonly been found to work—it’s a best practice. Sorry for the confusion. To elaborate further, best practices are discovered, not dictated; they’re descriptive, not prescriptive (especially on Wikipedia). The alternate view I presented was a prescriptive and restrictive one I have previously encountered, and one that I disagree with, but I opened an RFC because it seemed the best way of finding out what the consensus view is. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a rough draft for conversation purposes and not an "official" proposal, but maybe it would be useful to start the WP:CSC section with text along the lines of:

"As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, most lists should not seek to be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should thus usually include justification for inclusion that goes beyond verifiable existence."

In other words, a brief explanation of why CSC are so common. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds unfortunately close to "I believe that CSC #3 is invalid", and consequently I strongly doubt that there is any chance of it being adopted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
? Hm. Well, like I said it's a rough draft, but I'm not entirely sure why it gave you that impression. This text is just to contextualize and thus provide an explanation for the common selection criteria. #3 (and everything else currently there) remains as is, with #3 already heavily qualifying the idea of an exhaustive list already. My text is just intended to explain why only some lists should be exhaustive (I don't think that it's controversial that "most" lists should not seek to be exhaustive). Maybe the words "most" and "usually" don't sufficiently make clear that there are times list should be exhaustive (and that those constitute most of the cases for which verifiable existence/belonging is sufficient)? I think providing an explanation would help a lot, so maybe you could suggest what would assuage your concern that it's unfriendly to #3? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is "these are what we usually end up doing". I also agree that this should be clarified, because I, too, keep encountering people who think "these are the only options", even people who misinterpret the section to mean "no entries are permissible if they are not notable and don't already have their own articles". While that specific inclusion criterion is actually appropriate for many "top level" lists, taken to an extreme it defeats the purpose of lists generally. The draft above is a good start, but should address this issue generally, and also more concretely address the issue it was drafted to take on, by actually include the words "encyclopedic" and "relevant". We should linked to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia:Relevance; the former is a basic principles page people don't read often enough, and the latter concisely ties together some core essays like WP:Handling trivia, WP:Writing better articles, and WP:Coatrack. "Usually" would be gamed, so illustrate the point with examples, don't give a loophole. And "include justification for inclusion" is repetitive and confusing. Suggested redraft:

    As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, most lists should not seek to be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should thus factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them; but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band ever mentioned in a local newspaper. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, is may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.

Possibly the example material wouldn't be necessary if CSC1-3 are clear enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I like the early parts, of course, but I think the next to last sentence makes it even more confusing than it was. A list of Norwegian musicians, to use your example, is not an "overview list of a broad subject" (or if we want to say it is, then let's use something like "List of garage rock bands from Oslo" to be more specific). So notability would not be an appropriate standard according to this, yet in the example it's clear that being mentioned in a local newspaper isn't enough -- so what guidance is the person working on the list supposed to take away? Notability is our mechanism for rendering "encyclopedic" anything but subjective. If not notability, where would you point a fan of a garage rock band who sees that band as "encyclopedic" and thinks they should even have their own article...but the band has only been briefly mentioned in a local paper? What does it mean for a subject to be "not likely to have their own article soon or ever" if we're not using some sense of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" (i.e. notability)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, so massage it around a bit. I think we know what the goal is. The guidance someone should take away is, as it says, focus on relevance in the encyclopedic and topical context. It's the same process we go through in determining whether to include any fact in any other article, really. Not likely to have own article: We link to WP:Red links for a reason. This guideline isn't supposed to define every possible concept. We have different pages on different internal matters for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, is may be too stringent for narrower lists" - SMcCandlish, what policy/guideline is this statement based on, as the Notability policy states it "does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article" ? (edit: unless you're referring to WP:NOTESAL) I agree that relevance, common sense what Wikipedia is not, including WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY) and perhaps Wikilaywering (given that there are many cases of this surrounding the selection criteria) should be included in the section. Lapadite (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The structure and general wording of CSC suggests CSC #1 is the one that ought to be used in most if not all cases, with the exception of short/limited lists like lists of minor characters, particularly when it claims that "Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment" (is that based on a calculation?) As another editor asked, why is the CSC numbered and not a bulleted list? Lapadite (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's based on WP:COMMONSENSE of course. Not everything every page here says has be derived from previously stated policy, or there wouldn't be anything here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
So such a claim is not based on fact but on what's assumed to be true. I'm not sure that should be there if it might not be the actual case. I've personally come across several FLs that contain unlinked entries, but I wouldn't claim many or most lists include unlinked items without randomly sampling a sizable amount of FLs. That blanket statement also doesn't take into account the variety of FL topics. Lapadite (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not following what you're getting at here. What claim does "such a claim" refer to? What facts and assumptions are you talking about? What "blanket statement"? The pointed question '"Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgement" (is that based on a calculation?)' does not compute to begin with, since "many" is not a calculated figure, but simply "more than a few"; your own statement 'I've personally come across several FLs that contain unlinked entries' confirms the very point. You appear to be conflating WP:Notability with encyclopedic relevance in a list, when half the point of this entire discussion is that these are distinct concerns. Etc. I don't see any need to completely pick this apart. Please just state what your issue is more cogently.

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

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

Why to not get too detailed here

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

  1. It's possible for List of cat breeds to become exhaustive but not over-long, under a criterion like "recognised by one or more national or international breeder and fancier organisations", because of how the cat fancy is organised. {{Infobox cat breed}} encompasses every known non-trivial organisation of this sort, and they all publish breed lists, with imperfect but very substantial overlap and consistency. Nothing like that is true of horse breeding, which is entirely unregulated by any national or international bodies, but principally a matter of a huge profusion of breed clubs that are not independent of the breeds they promote; thus WP:EQUINE has settled, perhaps necessarily, on the WP:GNG as a criterion at List of horse breeds and even its sublists.
  2. Some WP:WikiProject Cue sports article reorganization that needs to take place (current lists like List of snooker players are unhelpfully mingling pro and amateur players): It's possible for both List of professional snooker players and List of professional three-cushion billiards players to become exhaustive but not over-long, simply because they are a rarified bunch, sanctioned [in the positive sense of that word] by a single world-wide professional sport governing body for each discipline (WPBSA and UMB, respectively). By contrast, no such exhaustive article could be written at List of professional pool players, because that other cue sport has no single world-wide governing body, but numerous competing ones, and some national-level independent ones (WPBSA, USPPA) of more professional significance than international ones like the WPA, plus numerous independent pro tournaments; as a result there are thousands of pro and pro-am players at varying levels. Yet strict GNG notability is not a useful criterion for such a list, because even out of the top 100 players in the world, only some percentage of them generate substantial secondary source coverage in independent sources. It's important for encyclopedic coverage to include them at least in a list (and see how poor our coverage still is at WP:CUEBIOS).

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

I think the statement that "most lists should not seek to be exhaustive" is wrong. At best, it varies so much by subject area that the statement is meaningless; at worst, it discourages people from doing good work. I agree that most lists of people from geographic areas or involved in a given, broad occupations should not seek to be exhaustive. However, most lists of animal types should. All lists of books by an author/paintings by painters/buildings by architects/compositions by composers/creations by creators should. All lists of people who held a specified office should. All lists of public agencies should. All lists of geographic places should. And so forth: we could probably come up with a hundred examples of lists that ought to be completed.
In general, I don't think that this approach will help. If we still have people making up a "must be a blue link" rule, then we should solve that problem. We will not solve that problem by putting more vague principles on the page. We will solve it by directly acknowledging that this rule does exist and is actually used in very rare circumstances (almost always a list of people that could have many thousands of entries), but that it is not a mandatory criterion for all lists (and not even for all lists of BLPs). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
We can probably get at that with further revision. "Many lists should not seek to be exhaustive" is one step in that direction. But lists are inanimate and can't "seek" to be anything. So how about, "For many lists, it is impractical for them to be exhaustive". The Norwegian musicians example illustrates this clearly, while the species one illustrates your point clearly. Part of what I'm getting at in "my version" above is, as you say, solving the problem of people making up a "must be a blue link" rule. Per criterion type #2, obviously for many lists there shouldn't be many links at all. Anyway, it's stuff to think and talk about.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anybody disputes these examples (animals, geographic places, discographies, etc.) My perception is that those sorts of lists, though many, still constitute a minority of possible list topics that someone would be consulting this guideline about. But maybe it would be better to say, instead of "most lists should not seek to be exhaustive," "only certain types of lists should seek to be exhaustive"? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, “only certain types of lists should be exhaustive; for instance: …” or something along those lines? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Works for me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

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

As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should thus factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them; but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band ever mentioned in a local newspaper. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.

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

I know it’s not ideal yet, but it seemed to me that the page would be better off with that paragraph than it was without. I have no objections to anyone editing it in any way they deem fit, including if you disagree with the preceding sentence. I hope it’s an improvement, but please do improve it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
We need that information somewhere, and we also need this to have a lead that gets some of the main points across. Whether every detail of that needs to be in the lead isn't certain, but if not, it needs to be moved to a section, not removed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC regarding application of List Selection Criteria

An RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#RfC_-_Should_TV_network_pages_include_future_programming_lists.3F regarding how "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. " should be applied to not-yet-broadcast programs in lists of programs broadcast by a station. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Constructive criticism

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

butthat's exactly what the station's own website is for. The principle at issue is NOT DIRECTORY. They provide the information they think appropriate, we provide encyclopedic information. As a general rule, anything that's really appropriate or an organization's website, is very likely not to be suitable for WP. Each source of information has its own very diffeent purposes. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
What about for former talent? MikeM2011 (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
What about it? If a station formerly hosted WP:notable talent, you can list them as "Former host".--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Would be moved to "History" subsection though. The rest of the article should be "current." Student7 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding how to include "series" in a list

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

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

Wait, you're asking us? Shouldn't it be the other way 'round?
I'll start with the obvious, which you have already thought of: "Encyclopedia Britannica A-Ba" etc. should probably listed as "EB 1993" or whatever. I'm guessing that these are differently named. Like "Life magazine:Ethiopia", "Life magazine:Greece". To me, omitting or shortening the "Life magazine" would be useful. I want to know that the series included "Ethiopia, Greece..." Just an opinion.Student7 (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm an inclusionist. More info is better, except when it's not. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"List of British ordnance terms"

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

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

Please help sort out this issue at talk:List of British ordnance terms#Rename proposal: British ordnance terminology, 1850-1950

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

"Apple" automatically in "List of fruits"?

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

The problem here is that a verifying editor must go to the appropriate article and verify for herself that an apple is indeed a fruit. This isn't exactly like using Wikipedia to verify Wikipedia, which everyone agrees is wrong, but it is "clase enough" to be annoying to each individual editor who is forced to examine another article to verify an entry, when the person doing the changes could have used a WP:RS quite easily, unless, of course, they were writing "top of their head'/WP:SYNTH.

I think the sentence is bad policy and should be removed. What is "obvious" to one English speaker is not necessarily blinding obvious to another, whose first language, or even second, may well not be English. It is "blindingly obvious' that a tomato is a fruit? Is it "blindingly obvious" that the tomato plant is in the nightshade family? Why not just cite it when entered and get it over with? A lot of wasted energy otherwise. Student7 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. This sentence follows from WP:OVERLINKING. It's a generality and assumed that yes some English speakers will not actually know it, but their experience is outweighed by the degradation of everyone's experience if we overlink everything. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I hope you mean linking but I fear you mean over-citing. Lists, whether linked or not linked should always have a cite IMO. I don't know whether Bob Hope graduated from UCLA or not. A citation that says that would confirm the inclusion. The link does nothing (and no matter how closely one reads the article, Bob Hope's attending/graduating from UCLA will, most likely, not appear. This is why I discount links alone). I don't of a policy against overciting, meaning one cite for one list entry (or link, if notable). Student7 (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Where Bob Hope graduated from is not on the same level of extremely easily cited as Apple is a "fruit", or Bob Hope is a "name", or B is a "letter". Yes, I would consider a citation for the definition of every word on a page to be as obtuse and overly distracting as linking every word on the page. But as other editors have mentioned, if an idiot challenges a word or two, give in. But if an idiot starts citing everything, then no, don't let the page get ruined. The reasoning behind overlinking would also apply to over citing. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 15:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason we would not cite the inclusion of apples in List of fruits has nothing to do with how obvious the information is. The reason is because there are literally thousands of sources that support inclusion... so many sources that it is highly unlikely that anyone would challenge the inclusion.
That said... if some idiot actually does challenge the inclusion, my advice is to not argue about it. Just cite it. Consider the alternatives: you can either spend hours trying to convince the idiot that a citation isn't necessary... or... you can spend around thirty seconds to do a quick google search, find one of those thousands of sources, and slap a citation into the article... that shuts the idiot up (I call this the "Let the Wookie win" principle). Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


Another reason not to cite in cases like this is that being a fruit is a defining characteristic of an apple, and that better be the first thing mentioned in the lede of the article on Apple - in other words, finding a WP:V-meeting citation there should be overly trivial. In contrast, saying that John Q Smith graduated from a certain high school is not something I would necessarily expect easy to find from a single glance at the article on John Q Smith so a inline cite on the list "Graduates of (high school)" makes sense. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll drop the apple argument.
What about notable people in Winter Park? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Park,_Florida&diff=693878671&oldid=693878245 Student7 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
All list items require intext citations demonstrating their relationship to that list: WP:Source list; "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references)". With that said, tagging every item with a "citation needed" tag is excessive and unnecessary. One tag at the top of the list will do and not distract from the content. I just split the list of Winter Park people to its own page and added a verification needed tag to the top of the page. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 13:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Texas Longhorns football series records for deletion

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

No definition of list included!

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

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

What is a list?

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

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


Well, I think that's kind of the point. They are all "articles", subject to all the criterion articles are subject to. A list is just a subset of article pages that have lists either embedded or stand alone. I think the shifting goal of trying to make all stand alone list pages have prose, including introductions, has blurred the that line quite a bit. While that may sound like a "I'll know it when I see it argument", your above proposal is honestly the first time I've run across any confusion. And even there, I think it's clear that Glossary of British ordnance terms is more accurate than list. If you have proposal for a definition beyond "articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list", I'd love to read it. But I'm not much motivated to "pin it down" so to speak. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Exactly right. A "list article" is simply an article where the information is presented in listified format as opposed to one where the information is presented in some other format (such as prose sentence/paragraph format, or poetic riming couplets). Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Except, all list articles should include prose. At the very least, an introduction explaining the purpose of the list. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 02:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Many editors have been directed here by a vigilante, erythrophobic editor with administrator privileges after he/she deleted their entries claiming that this page forbids adding people/places/etc. to a list with an interwiki link only (or with an interwiki link plus any number of links to solid bios that this editor deems not reliable sources). I have not been able to find a hint of this in this guideline, but it may be several links away if it exists. For a recent example, in this editor's mind debatably notable and poorly-referenced Elmira Antommarchi, Hugo Jamioy Juagibioy and Oscar Perdomo Gamboa belong in the List of Colombian writers while the unquestionably notable and well-referenced Julio Flórez [es; fr; it], Aurelio Arturo, Candelario Obeso and Arnoldo Palacios [es; fr] do not. The latter two he/she specifically deleted, leaving an irrational message at a poor new editor's talk page. The current version of this alphabetical list is a more or less random subset of Category:Colombian writers and basically adds no value to wikipedia, though I'm getting the impression that for some this result is their inscrutable goal.
Can we add to the guideline that the addition of entries with interwiki links to referenced foreign-language articles is encouraged? Even the most devout monoglot can use google translate these days to confirm notability. There are numerous advantages expanding lists this way, not the least of which is adding notable and quickly accessible information to the English wikipedia. Afasmit (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Article titles for lists of works

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

RfC: Policies for music genres

I'd like to propose some common sense guidelines for #Citing sources and/or MOS:MUSIC. There are virtually no guidelines for music genres, and because of that, I often find myself in edit wars making these same arguments over and over again, so I would like official consensus on these matters:

  • WP:GENREVERIFY (clarification of WP:VERIFY)
  • WP:EXPLICITGENRE (clarification of WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:SYNTH)
    • References must be explicit in saying that the artist belongs to a genre. For instance, a source that identifies the Beatles' Rubber Soul as "a folk rock album" does not mean that the Beatles count as a folk rock band.
    • Sources must directly support cited genres. When a source writes that a work "mixes experimental, rock, and jazz", it does not necessarily follow that it is a work of experimental, rock, and jazz. By the same token, if a source cites a work of pop music for using synthesizers prominently, this should not lead an editor to refer to the work as "synthpop" if not explicitly stated by the source.

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

Question regarding "List of ... (title)" article titles

Titles to several "List of Presidents of the United States by ..." have recently been changed (Presidents → presidents) citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style & MOS:JOBTITLE. One editor stated that he was "simply correcting grammar." Is MOS for Stand-alone list titles being accurately interpreted here? If so, should pluralized job titles in similar article titles (lists of: "Governors of ....", "Prime Ministers of ..." "Secretaries of State of ..." and etc.) be changed to lower case? Your input and guidance will be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

obviously appropriate material may not need a source, but also doesn't require the absence of a source

I'm about to make a semi-bold edit. First is the entirety of the WP:LISTVERIFY section right now (with changing content in bold):

Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.
When an inline citation is not required by a sourcing policy and editors choose to name more sources than strictly required, then either general references or inline citations may be used. It is generally expected that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, will not be supported by any type of reference.

And here is my edit:

Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.
When an inline citation is not required by a sourcing policy and editors choose to name more sources than strictly required, then either general references or inline citations may be used. It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require and inline citation.

Rationale:

The spirit of the sentence in question would seem to be that "obviously appropriate material" is not the sort that one would expect to be challenged in good faith, and thus not something that requires a citation. That said, it seems contrary to the spirit of WP:V and WP:CITE to say that reliable sources should be disallowed. In other words, "will not be supported by any type of reference" has been construed to mean "should not be supported by any type of reference". Based on my understanding, the reword is closer to the spirit.

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

Selection criteria for timelines

The section WP:LISTCRITERIA doesn't really deal with timelines. What are appropriate inclusion criteria for a timeline article? When does inclusion become WP:OR? See for example Timeline of WhatsApp, currently up for deletion, which appears to me to be almost entirely WP:OR assembled here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

If you are interested in bigger picture issue of timelines, please also see related discussion at WT:N, here. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • A "timeline of X" is simply a "history of X" presented in a graphic, listified format instead of a prose format... so, if an event would be deemed noteworthy enough to include in a prose History of X article, then it can be included on a timeline. The same sourcing requirements would apply... as would harder to define concepts, such as relevance (i.e. we must use editorial judgment to ask "is this event really worth mentioning.") The problem with graphic format timelines is that there is no way to distinguish the significance of events... events are presented with equal weight. With prose, however, we can give significant events more weight by spending more article space on them, and can give less significant events less weight by spending less article space on them (or not mentioning them at all). Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)0
  • Repeating what I said at the AfD. Timelines can be WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the exact way described by the user essay Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information which backs up WP:NOT, and is linked from it. WP:NOT is a valid policy on which to reject timeline articles. Here's why. The essay says a collection without distinctions is junk. Without criteria to create a timeline article, it is impossible to conduct a valid evaluation of any random news story mentioning the timeline's subject in order to either include the event in the timeline or reject it. It becomes an indiscriminate matter of taste or attention of anyone who approaches the timeline article. They will become poor coatracks for any random thought someone has about the company they cover. This fits the essay description "assembled without care or making distinctions" perfectly. So the timeline needs more than just a subject; it also needs tight criteria for which to choose a point on the timeline. Otherwise it slides into subjective OR/SYNTH or a venue for worse WP:ADVERT and other nefarious stuff on Wikipedia.
List of long-distance motorcycle riders in conjunction with Template:Long distance motorcycling are a related project I and another core editor have been maintaining for a while. The list really constitutes more of a timeline per these articles we've been considering, and I think it's a good example of why strict criteria are required. Every Tom, Dick and Harry wants his epic ride listed here. But we can fall back on the mileage criteria to exclude things from the template, and fairly strict notability criteria for the list. It happens to have different criteria for different eras. - Bri (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Whether to include something in a timeline doesn't seem like a very different question than whether to include something in a history section of an article. Unlike a typical "list of..." the content is an inter-related flow rather than grouping of things in a given category or with a given property. Hence you can't expect the inclusion criteria to work the same way. There is something between OR/whimsy and quasi-calculable inclusion criteria: the same basic content policies on which we base decisions regarding what to include in an article. Sometimes people add OR-based content to a history article, then someone else can challenge whether it seems like a significant aspect of the subject such that it should be included (WP:WEIGHT and whatnot). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • A general rule of thumb is that if x is notable enough for an article, then "timeline of x" is presumed notable too. For many subjects a chronological treatment is inappropriate, but a chronology is still useful. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
That is a selection criterion which guarantees making duplicate articles throughout WP, and they are likely to become forks. Our principle of making one article only for each topic has so far been quite successful (I'm actually surprised we have been able to maintain it as well as we have). As mentioned earlier, a timeline cannot be provided with explanations, and as applied here, usually doesn't have specific references. It puts everything at the same level of importance. It should be seen a special device for groups of articles: for example, as a summary of a long series of historical events, as for for a country, where the key items to be included are something as obvious as monarchs, ministries and wars. They can serve as two roles: a method of orientation, perhaps in a second window, while reading the articles. They have a special role for complex fictions, where the events in the successive works of the fiction appeared in a different sequence than the events in the imagined universe. They aren't needed if there is a single straightforward article. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A company or organization may be included...

This text seems misleading:

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

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

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

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

Unclear policy about list notability

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

RfC: Notes for Feature Column headings

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

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

Proposed addition:

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists/Archive_9&oldid=1137455447"