![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
This is perhaps a bit out-of-place, but I would like comments regarding whether or not the article Scientific opinion on climate change is, or is not (should, or shouldn't be) viewed within the context of WP:LIST. I believe it should, but that the current scope of WP:LIST doesn't really allow for it as such (or if it does, it's not much help as a guideline). I'd rather avoid a debate on notability or neutrality of the article. Note I've also put some comment at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote relating to hatnotes that tighten-up list inclusion/exclusion criteria, relating to the same article. If editors agree the article IS a list, and a good example, then perhaps it can inform some tweaks to the list guidelines. -- Jaymax ( talk) 02:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I have looked but can't seem to find any guideline or policy that deals specifically with abbreviations in lists. For a list of title changes, for example, can you have [[Phoenx, Arizona|Phoenix, AZ]] or does it have to be [[Phoenix, Arizona]]? One editor who doesn't like abbreviations keeps claiming that using abbreviations are too "US centric" (a claim I don't buy, especially since all the locations are linked anyways). TJ Spyke 00:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion over whether or not lists should be independently referenced; whether, for example, a list of MPs should be referenced or not if the articles on those MPs note, through reliable sources, that they are MPs. It seems commonsensical to me that lists should always be independently referenced; it opens up the opportunity for abuse if not. As such, I suggest including a point within the lists guideline that lists must always be referenced, regardless of whether the linked articles are. Thoughts? Ironholds ( talk) 11:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
What does "low-quality contextual information" mean? 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 04:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
A discussion about the conflation of wikipedia:lists, wikipedia:stand-alone lists, wikipedia:embedded lists, and wikipedia:WTUT is occuring at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Lists. If you decided to contribute please contribute there. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 23:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Ucucha 07:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Lists →
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists) —No longer a guideline on how to use lists, it lists situations where using lists are appropriate and inappropriate. Also mentions how to use them, how to format them, what style to use, what conventions to abide by, etc. etc..
174.3.98.236 (
talk)
11:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is the following passage:
"The list title should not be misleading (and should normally not include abbreviations), but overly precise list titles can be less useful (and make the list difficult to find); the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title."
It is not clear if the lead section refers to lede, or to every lead in a section. It is not clear weather this applies only to stand alone lists or also to embedded lists. 174.3.99.176 ( talk) 23:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
===Comma-separated_Lists=== should be cleaned up. It is absolutely unclear what it is talking about. 174.3.110.108 ( talk) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
As they are now commonplace merge points for longer running works, should they also be mentioned in "Types of list articles include:"? 陣 内 Jinnai 22:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
This is perhaps a bit out-of-place, but I would like comments regarding whether or not the article Scientific opinion on climate change is, or is not (should, or shouldn't be) viewed within the context of WP:LIST. I believe it should, but that the current scope of WP:LIST doesn't really allow for it as such (or if it does, it's not much help as a guideline). I'd rather avoid a debate on notability or neutrality of the article. Note I've also put some comment at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote relating to hatnotes that tighten-up list inclusion/exclusion criteria, relating to the same article. If editors agree the article IS a list, and a good example, then perhaps it can inform some tweaks to the list guidelines. -- Jaymax ( talk) 02:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I have looked but can't seem to find any guideline or policy that deals specifically with abbreviations in lists. For a list of title changes, for example, can you have [[Phoenx, Arizona|Phoenix, AZ]] or does it have to be [[Phoenix, Arizona]]? One editor who doesn't like abbreviations keeps claiming that using abbreviations are too "US centric" (a claim I don't buy, especially since all the locations are linked anyways). TJ Spyke 00:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion over whether or not lists should be independently referenced; whether, for example, a list of MPs should be referenced or not if the articles on those MPs note, through reliable sources, that they are MPs. It seems commonsensical to me that lists should always be independently referenced; it opens up the opportunity for abuse if not. As such, I suggest including a point within the lists guideline that lists must always be referenced, regardless of whether the linked articles are. Thoughts? Ironholds ( talk) 11:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
What does "low-quality contextual information" mean? 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 04:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
A discussion about the conflation of wikipedia:lists, wikipedia:stand-alone lists, wikipedia:embedded lists, and wikipedia:WTUT is occuring at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Lists. If you decided to contribute please contribute there. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 23:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Ucucha 07:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Lists →
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists) —No longer a guideline on how to use lists, it lists situations where using lists are appropriate and inappropriate. Also mentions how to use them, how to format them, what style to use, what conventions to abide by, etc. etc..
174.3.98.236 (
talk)
11:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is the following passage:
"The list title should not be misleading (and should normally not include abbreviations), but overly precise list titles can be less useful (and make the list difficult to find); the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title."
It is not clear if the lead section refers to lede, or to every lead in a section. It is not clear weather this applies only to stand alone lists or also to embedded lists. 174.3.99.176 ( talk) 23:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
===Comma-separated_Lists=== should be cleaned up. It is absolutely unclear what it is talking about. 174.3.110.108 ( talk) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
As they are now commonplace merge points for longer running works, should they also be mentioned in "Types of list articles include:"? 陣 内 Jinnai 22:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)