![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that we should add one bullet point to the goals. IMHO, we actually need to have more lists around WP in order to keep things in order, etc.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose a quota that all WikiProject members would be encouraged to meet:
I think that implementing such a quote will encourage more edits towards lists, which IMHO are the most neglected parts of edits in the entire encyclopedia.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Could this wikiproject also help maintain Wikipedia:Contents and its subpages? We could always use more eyeballs to help give those pages more perspective, and we don't currently have an associated project page, as such. -- Quiddity 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, should Wikipedia:Incomplete lists be merged/redirected here? It's very historic, hasn't changed significantly since 2004. -- Quiddity 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
List of companies working in Technopark ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
[Note: I copied this from Wikipedia talk:External links. I changed my first reply to adapt it to here. -- Timeshifter 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC) ]
Given the discussion above Wikipedia_talk:External_links#List_of_Mind_Mapping_software and related discussions, I'd like others' opinions on List of companies working in Technopark.
I consider the article a linkfarm, and started cleaning up the links when I noticed there were only 2 internal links in the list of 110 entries. I considered this reason enough to propose the article for deletion.
Since then, two entries have been removed and six others have been changed to internal. That gives 8 internal links in a list of 108 entries. -- Ronz 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This could be discussed in several locations:
If the list topic is considered notable, then the perennial question is should only the big-name companies be listed, thus in effect, putting wikipedia in the position of supporting oligopolies of the most well-known companies with the best press that money and advertising can buy. There are conflicting wikipedia guidelines. See WP:NOT#DIR. It states:
"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted."
I think the main problem with the list is that it does not give any info about the companies, and thus is basically a directory. I am not sure which way to go with this, and would like to hear more discussion. -- Timeshifter 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
List of mind mapping software ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could some other editors comment at the talk page there? -- Timeshifter 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Concerning List of mind mapping software
Ronz removed/blanked the citations/references June 2, 2007. See this diff.
Requestion blanked the citations June 3, 2007. See this diff.
MPS blanked the citations June 4, 2007,. See this diff.
Nposs blanked the citations June 5, 2007. See this diff.
It looks like there is a regular blanking crew for this list article, and possibly other list and chart articles. Consisting of Requestion, MPS, Nposs, and Ronz. On other list and chart pages I have seen some of these people doing this type of blanking.They substitute non-verifiable (to the average reader) hidden source links (using hidden comments inside the wiki code).
I have traced it back to at least the beginning of March 2007. I note that occasionally one of them will feign compromise, but they always end back at this newly-invented method of theirs of using hidden source links. It is completely against wikipedia guidelines and policies.
I would like some feedback from others about this. Any other lists and charts that this type of blanking is occurring on? -- Timeshifter 17:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which provide source information for specific statements. Model articles provide general references that support all the content while giving inline citations for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. In some articles, where all sources used for the article are cited inline, a separate section for general references will be omitted.
- Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, {{ uw-test1}} or {{ uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.
Considering the nature of this WikiProject putting a WikiProject banner on ALL articles that are list articles is a bad idea. This is a scope of style and not a scope of article topic. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Now, we can and should still have a method of article collaboration, but more of in a notice-board type of way. A WikiProject such as this functions differently than some of the more topic-orientated ones. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Many of the wikiprojects use "List-class" instead of a quality-class rating. See Category:List-Class articles, or an example at Talk:List of Egyptian dynasties. If we could get the wikiproject-banner-code people to make List-class an additional variable (instead of a replacement variable for the quality rating), we could possibly use that to coordinate ourselves? We'd just need a bot to cross-reference the 2 category types (list-class + quality-class) and propagate a table. (easier said than done ;) -- Quiddity 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProjectNotice|Lists}}
Note the existence of {{ WPDAB}} and {{ WikiProject Redirect}}
To make lists successful in Wikipedia, we need a strong foundation and in particular a good "criteria for inclusion" in WP:L. Many lists end up violating WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV because it is more difficult to apply these to lists than to articles. See this essay for the rationale Wikipedia:Lists_in_Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the List of notable organ transplant donors and recipients has potential to be a featured list, but it still needs some work. I'm too busy right now to work on it right now, but I thought I would bring it to this the attention of this wikiproject. Remember 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
(Originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists#Idea for list and suggestion for featured list - is this place more active?)
There are several lists included at WP:WANTED that might be of interest to this project. -- Sapphic 16:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There is discussion at the village pump about lists.
See also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links. -- Timeshifter 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
As I see there is a WP on Lists, what are your project's thoughts on assessment of List articles? I know there is a FL class, but do you normally then assess all lists as List class unless they are FL, or do you use the normal assessment scale: Stub, Start, B, GA, A, FL? Any insight would be great. Aboutmovies 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In most cases one can just remove the "list-class" value from project banners and then use the normal assessment scale. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Most of this chart was deleted. See this diff of the deletion.
Can some list and chart editors comment at Talk:Comparison of time tracking software.
It seems that almost 2 years of work was deleted for no particularly good reason.
Here is the chart before the blanking:
I think the main problem with the chart then was that the wikilinks were mixed up with the embedded citations. A minor problem was the inclusion of some specific prices in some cases.
The wikilinks should have been the only links with text labels. The embedded citation links should not have had text labels. They should just be numbered automatically by the wikipedia software. See WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Embedded citations.-- Timeshifter 05:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Chart page destroyed by group blanking by editors parachuting in.
Please see: Comparison of time tracking software ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note the edit history, and the talk page. Ever since two-thirds of the chart was deleted by a blanking crew, the main editors of the chart seem to have left. What remains are mostly a few random attempts to add new entries by passersby, and some haphazard formatting attempts.
Most of the new entry attempts get slapped down by the current guardian User:Mrzaius who I have seen in other discussions with the previously-mentioned blanking crew.
Here is the version of the chart before most of it was deleted:
Think of the months and years of effort down the tubes. -- Timeshifter 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been getting hounded/harrassed by the powers that be regarding disambiguation and lists--even banned for a day because of it, and I tire of it. See Talk:Darker (disambiguation) (and the article I created based on it, List of titles with "Darker" in them), Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#disagreement about linking to dictionary DABs, and Talk:Mystery (disambiguation). Basically, all of this recent nonsense started over linking to DAB pages (at Talk:Discover Magazine (TV series)). It's just getting ridiculously out of hand and more support needs to be added in favor of disambiguation lists in Wikipedia. ∞ ΣɛÞ² ( τ| c) 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this little essay summarizes many of the problems I see on list and chart pages. Feel free to copy or adapt this anywhere. Please see some relevant wikipedia guideline/policy quotes in a section near the top of my user page titled "Notability concerning lists and charts." See: User:Timeshifter.
There are conflicting guidelines on notability of items in lists and charts. But common sense allows article editors to reach a balance. It is obvious that some lists such as List of English writers could not include all writers. Wikipedia editors alone number in the millions! It is equally obvious to many that technology and software lists should include more than just the big corporate products. Some lists even have separate sections for freeware, shareware, and/or open source.
All 3 of those forms of software are notable in themselves. The topic of the lists are notable. Basic WP:NPOV encyclopedic fairness requires some balancing by the article editors for any list. There has to be a balance between corporate and non-corporate entries on lists. There have to be decisions made as to notability in the community of freeware/shareware/open-source -- versus notability in the corporate press where previous ad money often talks in getting press and reviews. Decisions need to be made as to the number of users using a program, product, or entry. Sometimes long lists may require limiting list/chart entries to certain thresholds of number of users for each category. Also, decisions as to whether an entry is fading into disuse, and therefore unworthy of taking up an entry slot if a list or chart is already long.
So, editors should not just parachute into a talk page, make a few muddied wikipedia guideline/policy declarations, and then delete/blank large parts of the articles, entries, or sources/citations. All without participating in the long consensus process that preceded them on the talk page. There is no rush.-- Timeshifter 03:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for comments on this template User:Nil_Einne/Template:NOTE-L. Do editors think it's clear & properly phrased? Properly designed? Do you feel it's helpful? If you wondering why I made it, continue reading...
I'm coming from Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which as you might guess has a large amount of debate about who shouldnt & shouldn't be on the list. A month or two back, we deleted all red links, to end the chaos of people adding every single name they could find and as per WP:NOTE requirement that only notable entries should be added. This has cause some controversy and for a while we were mentioning the noteability requirement in the prose including a self ref [1]. After looking at a few featured lists a ( Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of HIV-positive people, List of notable brain tumor patients and List of people with epilepsy) I decided it was definitely unacceptable to include a self ref and also unnecessary to mention the notability requirement since from what I can tell, the consensus is that this is implied. Therefore, I removed the self ref and mention of notability requirement as per above. However this leaves us with the problem with how to avoid the perhaps well-meaning attempts to add non-noteable people to this list. To this end, I've added a bunch of hidden comments ( [2]). However I also thought it might be helpful to mention the requirement on the talk page so designed the template Nil Einne 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see:
The version with footnoted references that people are referring to is at this revision:
Wikipedia has scores of embedded lists that include a criterion, implicitly or explicitly, of notability. "Notable residents", "notable alumni", or "notable contributors" are typical examples. My feeling with these is that they should mostly be limited to links to existing articles because those have proven notability. Red links should be to topics that meet our criteria for notability, and be to articles that "should" exist. In those instances an additional external link to a reliable source establishing notability is helpful and may prevent an otherwise obscure name from being deleted. However if an editor objects to the inclusion of a red link then the best answer is to create an article on the topic rather than to keep re-inserting the link that goes nowhere. I suppose that on lists where notability is not even implictly one of the criteria then simply including the name without linking it would be the best approach. For example, a list of schools in a school district might list, but not link, elementary schools while red-linking high schools. I can't find any direct mention of this issue in the various applicable guidelines: Wikipedia:List guideline, Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia, or Wikipedia:Embedded list. Is this covered anywhere? If not, should it be? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see there's a current discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:Notability#Lists require notable entries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Since its merger, " List of Pokémon" has been unbelievably popular for the whole of 2007 with the viewing audience. In the rank tables, this list came: 4th in June, 4th in May, 4th in April, 8th in March and 14th in February. Consistently being the fourth most popular in an encyclopedia of 6,854,849 articles is an impressive feat. May I suggest that in the interest of public opinion, attentions be focused intensely on this page, in particular improving it to Featured List status? - 82.16.7.63 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
See Template:makelist. It creates lists. What do people think? -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 03:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been watching the following:
All of the above proposed a mass deletion of the articles listed under Category:Lists of companies by country. The debate is not getting anywhere - one keep verdict is leading to another delete-all proposal. I have been asked to go to DRV with this, instead of a second nomination. But, since it seems to be a bigger issue than a simple-minded DRV I think it should be discussed here first. It is highly possible that an editor with diligence and enough understanding of the policies can go article by article to get them deleted through the proper process. But, it is always better to have broader consensus on a class of articles that keeps harassing the intelligence of many editors.
The appropriate reasons for keeping the articles in this category as well as deleting them have already been, mostly, discussed on the pages I provided the links to. Therefore, I am not repeating them again (WP doesn't have infinite server space and we all can make time for the few seconds it takes to go the linked pages). My proposition is simple - either have policy on inclusion criterion or delete them all. Help Wikipedia from turning into the yellow pages. Aditya Kabir 09:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Factored in from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Lists versus categories: a very particular case, which got removed by the bot.
Well, lists of companies AND basic facts about them would really be useful---but extremely hard to compile and maintain, if possible at all. If the lists are only supposed to be directories of company names, just get rid of them all and use categories. --- The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Factored in from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Lists versus categories: a very particular case, which got removed by the bot.
I have been trying to discuss this for quite sometime now at different places, without much success. But, the issue still remains at large - the company list articles seem to be quite wild. Most are either useless or powerful spam magnets, some are way too long with some more promising to become so, and all are growing without the slightest notion of guiding principles. For details please check the discussion here. Aditya( talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Reset indent. Hey MSjapan, Aditya. I tend to agree with both you and you make great points. However, I have also cleaned spam off category pages, [3] and [4] for example - cats tend not to be watchlisted like articles and spam can often sit there for a long time. I also think categories require oversight and maintenance (I've been struggling to sort out some cats for the last few days). And I'm not convinced it takes more work to fix a poorly maintained list than it does to sort out an ungodly tangle of misused categories and then recat all the articles <groan>. In fact the category mess is often so bad that there are a couple of wikiprojects devoted just to sorting out categories. I think the bottom line is that lists (if well maintained) CAN be an invaluable centralised index for articles. All the WP articles of one particular flavour (list of companies, list of Pokemon ;) in one place where it is easy for readers to find things they want and navigate either using the back button or using tabbed browsing. That's one reason I started working on List of Cambodia-related topics after a previous AfD. I'm part of Wikiproject Cambodia, which is fairly new, and we'd like to know where all the articles about Cambodia are - how many are there, on what topics and what topics are missing. So I started going through the categories and watchlisting them to keep them spam free and make it easy to find them again. Check out this 'list' of categories I've found so far User:Paxse/Sandbox5. Scary isn't it? There are still some I haven't checked out and watchlisted and I've seen 3 NEW Cambodia categories created in the last few weeks. Compare that with List of Cambodia-related topics. Which is easier to navigate and maintain? I think the real problem is that some lists tend to be badly neglected. In that sense the AfD's have been very positive in raising the issue of spam and vandalism in poorly maintained lists. But that's a relatively easy problem to fix - add a couple of lists to your watchlist, clean 'em up and keep an eye on them. Better still expand them with good links to notable things. That's my take on these lists anyway. Sorry for the belated reply and the long rant :) Cheers, Paxse 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This list is the largest article on Wikipedia (600k in size). To ensure centralised discussion on what to do with it, could any interested editors please discuss the issue over at the list's talk page. → AA ( talk) — 16:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Two new articles, Mountain peaks of the United States and Mountain peaks of North America seem to be excellent candidates for lists. Responding to my suggestion, one of the authors said that they did not meet the criteria. Maybe a reader here could weigh in one way or the other. Thanks.-- Appraiser 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear colleagues
WP's Manual of Style has been expanded to include a summary of the recently overhauled MOSNUM submanual. Featured List candidates are explicitly required to follow these guidelines, as are all WP articles.
At issue are the new Sections 9–14:
More detailed information on these and other topics is at WP:MOSNUM. Tony 06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Quoting myself from Wikipedia talk:Lists#Question about categorical lists -
Are there any guidelines about categorized or hierarchical lists, specifically "Unsorted", "Miscellaneous" or "Other" headings? IMO this is far worse than a trivia section in an article, as the whole point of a categorized list is to organize by topic. For a specific example, I would like to point out List of vegetable oils (a featured list), with an "Other oils" section. This section will not be interesting for people to read. Just glancing at it, I see that further headings could be made for "Medicine", "Cosmetics" and "Insecticides".
These sections can make the article look unreliable (see: List_of_edible_seeds#Miscellaneous), and can also mean that the item does not meet the requirements of the list (see: List_of_fruits#Unsorted). I did put the Template:expert in those, which I know makes it look worse.
Could some guideline be made about this? I would love to have an unsorted template (like Template:Trivia) to put into such lists. My basic idea is this: if an item cannot be categorized then it probably does not belong on that categorical list. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists concerning the Wikipedia:Contents subpages, and specifically on the namespace they belong in. Thanks. -- Quiddity 17:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Given the confusion I've seen in AfD discussions, I'd like to add the following sentence to Wikipedia:Lists#Criteria for inclusion in lists: "Review Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for further clarification (see also WP:NOT#DIR)." My reasonings are set out in full at User:Sidatio/Conversations/On_list_guidelines#Alternate_proposal:_clarification_and_alteration_of_up_to_three_policies. I'm bringing it up here before implementing such a change to see if there are objections. :) (And also to ask anyone else interested in joining the conversation at User:Sidatio/Conversations/On_list_guidelines to please chime in. The conversation is flagging. :)) -- Moonriddengirl 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi folks, WP:FLC is an important process and is currently suffering from a lack of reviewers. If anyone would be interested in helping review some lists, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Scorpion 0422 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it alright to archive the discussion thread "Lists versus categories: a very particular case"? It only has archival values now. Thanks. Aditya( talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 September 2007 (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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that we should add one bullet point to the goals. IMHO, we actually need to have more lists around WP in order to keep things in order, etc.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose a quota that all WikiProject members would be encouraged to meet:
I think that implementing such a quote will encourage more edits towards lists, which IMHO are the most neglected parts of edits in the entire encyclopedia.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Could this wikiproject also help maintain Wikipedia:Contents and its subpages? We could always use more eyeballs to help give those pages more perspective, and we don't currently have an associated project page, as such. -- Quiddity 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, should Wikipedia:Incomplete lists be merged/redirected here? It's very historic, hasn't changed significantly since 2004. -- Quiddity 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
List of companies working in Technopark ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
[Note: I copied this from Wikipedia talk:External links. I changed my first reply to adapt it to here. -- Timeshifter 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC) ]
Given the discussion above Wikipedia_talk:External_links#List_of_Mind_Mapping_software and related discussions, I'd like others' opinions on List of companies working in Technopark.
I consider the article a linkfarm, and started cleaning up the links when I noticed there were only 2 internal links in the list of 110 entries. I considered this reason enough to propose the article for deletion.
Since then, two entries have been removed and six others have been changed to internal. That gives 8 internal links in a list of 108 entries. -- Ronz 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This could be discussed in several locations:
If the list topic is considered notable, then the perennial question is should only the big-name companies be listed, thus in effect, putting wikipedia in the position of supporting oligopolies of the most well-known companies with the best press that money and advertising can buy. There are conflicting wikipedia guidelines. See WP:NOT#DIR. It states:
"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted."
I think the main problem with the list is that it does not give any info about the companies, and thus is basically a directory. I am not sure which way to go with this, and would like to hear more discussion. -- Timeshifter 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
List of mind mapping software ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could some other editors comment at the talk page there? -- Timeshifter 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Concerning List of mind mapping software
Ronz removed/blanked the citations/references June 2, 2007. See this diff.
Requestion blanked the citations June 3, 2007. See this diff.
MPS blanked the citations June 4, 2007,. See this diff.
Nposs blanked the citations June 5, 2007. See this diff.
It looks like there is a regular blanking crew for this list article, and possibly other list and chart articles. Consisting of Requestion, MPS, Nposs, and Ronz. On other list and chart pages I have seen some of these people doing this type of blanking.They substitute non-verifiable (to the average reader) hidden source links (using hidden comments inside the wiki code).
I have traced it back to at least the beginning of March 2007. I note that occasionally one of them will feign compromise, but they always end back at this newly-invented method of theirs of using hidden source links. It is completely against wikipedia guidelines and policies.
I would like some feedback from others about this. Any other lists and charts that this type of blanking is occurring on? -- Timeshifter 17:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which provide source information for specific statements. Model articles provide general references that support all the content while giving inline citations for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. In some articles, where all sources used for the article are cited inline, a separate section for general references will be omitted.
- Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, {{ uw-test1}} or {{ uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.
Considering the nature of this WikiProject putting a WikiProject banner on ALL articles that are list articles is a bad idea. This is a scope of style and not a scope of article topic. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Now, we can and should still have a method of article collaboration, but more of in a notice-board type of way. A WikiProject such as this functions differently than some of the more topic-orientated ones. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Many of the wikiprojects use "List-class" instead of a quality-class rating. See Category:List-Class articles, or an example at Talk:List of Egyptian dynasties. If we could get the wikiproject-banner-code people to make List-class an additional variable (instead of a replacement variable for the quality rating), we could possibly use that to coordinate ourselves? We'd just need a bot to cross-reference the 2 category types (list-class + quality-class) and propagate a table. (easier said than done ;) -- Quiddity 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProjectNotice|Lists}}
Note the existence of {{ WPDAB}} and {{ WikiProject Redirect}}
To make lists successful in Wikipedia, we need a strong foundation and in particular a good "criteria for inclusion" in WP:L. Many lists end up violating WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV because it is more difficult to apply these to lists than to articles. See this essay for the rationale Wikipedia:Lists_in_Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the List of notable organ transplant donors and recipients has potential to be a featured list, but it still needs some work. I'm too busy right now to work on it right now, but I thought I would bring it to this the attention of this wikiproject. Remember 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
(Originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists#Idea for list and suggestion for featured list - is this place more active?)
There are several lists included at WP:WANTED that might be of interest to this project. -- Sapphic 16:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There is discussion at the village pump about lists.
See also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links. -- Timeshifter 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
As I see there is a WP on Lists, what are your project's thoughts on assessment of List articles? I know there is a FL class, but do you normally then assess all lists as List class unless they are FL, or do you use the normal assessment scale: Stub, Start, B, GA, A, FL? Any insight would be great. Aboutmovies 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In most cases one can just remove the "list-class" value from project banners and then use the normal assessment scale. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Most of this chart was deleted. See this diff of the deletion.
Can some list and chart editors comment at Talk:Comparison of time tracking software.
It seems that almost 2 years of work was deleted for no particularly good reason.
Here is the chart before the blanking:
I think the main problem with the chart then was that the wikilinks were mixed up with the embedded citations. A minor problem was the inclusion of some specific prices in some cases.
The wikilinks should have been the only links with text labels. The embedded citation links should not have had text labels. They should just be numbered automatically by the wikipedia software. See WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Embedded citations.-- Timeshifter 05:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Chart page destroyed by group blanking by editors parachuting in.
Please see: Comparison of time tracking software ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note the edit history, and the talk page. Ever since two-thirds of the chart was deleted by a blanking crew, the main editors of the chart seem to have left. What remains are mostly a few random attempts to add new entries by passersby, and some haphazard formatting attempts.
Most of the new entry attempts get slapped down by the current guardian User:Mrzaius who I have seen in other discussions with the previously-mentioned blanking crew.
Here is the version of the chart before most of it was deleted:
Think of the months and years of effort down the tubes. -- Timeshifter 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been getting hounded/harrassed by the powers that be regarding disambiguation and lists--even banned for a day because of it, and I tire of it. See Talk:Darker (disambiguation) (and the article I created based on it, List of titles with "Darker" in them), Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#disagreement about linking to dictionary DABs, and Talk:Mystery (disambiguation). Basically, all of this recent nonsense started over linking to DAB pages (at Talk:Discover Magazine (TV series)). It's just getting ridiculously out of hand and more support needs to be added in favor of disambiguation lists in Wikipedia. ∞ ΣɛÞ² ( τ| c) 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this little essay summarizes many of the problems I see on list and chart pages. Feel free to copy or adapt this anywhere. Please see some relevant wikipedia guideline/policy quotes in a section near the top of my user page titled "Notability concerning lists and charts." See: User:Timeshifter.
There are conflicting guidelines on notability of items in lists and charts. But common sense allows article editors to reach a balance. It is obvious that some lists such as List of English writers could not include all writers. Wikipedia editors alone number in the millions! It is equally obvious to many that technology and software lists should include more than just the big corporate products. Some lists even have separate sections for freeware, shareware, and/or open source.
All 3 of those forms of software are notable in themselves. The topic of the lists are notable. Basic WP:NPOV encyclopedic fairness requires some balancing by the article editors for any list. There has to be a balance between corporate and non-corporate entries on lists. There have to be decisions made as to notability in the community of freeware/shareware/open-source -- versus notability in the corporate press where previous ad money often talks in getting press and reviews. Decisions need to be made as to the number of users using a program, product, or entry. Sometimes long lists may require limiting list/chart entries to certain thresholds of number of users for each category. Also, decisions as to whether an entry is fading into disuse, and therefore unworthy of taking up an entry slot if a list or chart is already long.
So, editors should not just parachute into a talk page, make a few muddied wikipedia guideline/policy declarations, and then delete/blank large parts of the articles, entries, or sources/citations. All without participating in the long consensus process that preceded them on the talk page. There is no rush.-- Timeshifter 03:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for comments on this template User:Nil_Einne/Template:NOTE-L. Do editors think it's clear & properly phrased? Properly designed? Do you feel it's helpful? If you wondering why I made it, continue reading...
I'm coming from Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which as you might guess has a large amount of debate about who shouldnt & shouldn't be on the list. A month or two back, we deleted all red links, to end the chaos of people adding every single name they could find and as per WP:NOTE requirement that only notable entries should be added. This has cause some controversy and for a while we were mentioning the noteability requirement in the prose including a self ref [1]. After looking at a few featured lists a ( Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of HIV-positive people, List of notable brain tumor patients and List of people with epilepsy) I decided it was definitely unacceptable to include a self ref and also unnecessary to mention the notability requirement since from what I can tell, the consensus is that this is implied. Therefore, I removed the self ref and mention of notability requirement as per above. However this leaves us with the problem with how to avoid the perhaps well-meaning attempts to add non-noteable people to this list. To this end, I've added a bunch of hidden comments ( [2]). However I also thought it might be helpful to mention the requirement on the talk page so designed the template Nil Einne 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see:
The version with footnoted references that people are referring to is at this revision:
Wikipedia has scores of embedded lists that include a criterion, implicitly or explicitly, of notability. "Notable residents", "notable alumni", or "notable contributors" are typical examples. My feeling with these is that they should mostly be limited to links to existing articles because those have proven notability. Red links should be to topics that meet our criteria for notability, and be to articles that "should" exist. In those instances an additional external link to a reliable source establishing notability is helpful and may prevent an otherwise obscure name from being deleted. However if an editor objects to the inclusion of a red link then the best answer is to create an article on the topic rather than to keep re-inserting the link that goes nowhere. I suppose that on lists where notability is not even implictly one of the criteria then simply including the name without linking it would be the best approach. For example, a list of schools in a school district might list, but not link, elementary schools while red-linking high schools. I can't find any direct mention of this issue in the various applicable guidelines: Wikipedia:List guideline, Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia, or Wikipedia:Embedded list. Is this covered anywhere? If not, should it be? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see there's a current discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:Notability#Lists require notable entries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Since its merger, " List of Pokémon" has been unbelievably popular for the whole of 2007 with the viewing audience. In the rank tables, this list came: 4th in June, 4th in May, 4th in April, 8th in March and 14th in February. Consistently being the fourth most popular in an encyclopedia of 6,854,849 articles is an impressive feat. May I suggest that in the interest of public opinion, attentions be focused intensely on this page, in particular improving it to Featured List status? - 82.16.7.63 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
See Template:makelist. It creates lists. What do people think? -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 03:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been watching the following:
All of the above proposed a mass deletion of the articles listed under Category:Lists of companies by country. The debate is not getting anywhere - one keep verdict is leading to another delete-all proposal. I have been asked to go to DRV with this, instead of a second nomination. But, since it seems to be a bigger issue than a simple-minded DRV I think it should be discussed here first. It is highly possible that an editor with diligence and enough understanding of the policies can go article by article to get them deleted through the proper process. But, it is always better to have broader consensus on a class of articles that keeps harassing the intelligence of many editors.
The appropriate reasons for keeping the articles in this category as well as deleting them have already been, mostly, discussed on the pages I provided the links to. Therefore, I am not repeating them again (WP doesn't have infinite server space and we all can make time for the few seconds it takes to go the linked pages). My proposition is simple - either have policy on inclusion criterion or delete them all. Help Wikipedia from turning into the yellow pages. Aditya Kabir 09:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Factored in from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Lists versus categories: a very particular case, which got removed by the bot.
Well, lists of companies AND basic facts about them would really be useful---but extremely hard to compile and maintain, if possible at all. If the lists are only supposed to be directories of company names, just get rid of them all and use categories. --- The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Factored in from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Lists versus categories: a very particular case, which got removed by the bot.
I have been trying to discuss this for quite sometime now at different places, without much success. But, the issue still remains at large - the company list articles seem to be quite wild. Most are either useless or powerful spam magnets, some are way too long with some more promising to become so, and all are growing without the slightest notion of guiding principles. For details please check the discussion here. Aditya( talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Reset indent. Hey MSjapan, Aditya. I tend to agree with both you and you make great points. However, I have also cleaned spam off category pages, [3] and [4] for example - cats tend not to be watchlisted like articles and spam can often sit there for a long time. I also think categories require oversight and maintenance (I've been struggling to sort out some cats for the last few days). And I'm not convinced it takes more work to fix a poorly maintained list than it does to sort out an ungodly tangle of misused categories and then recat all the articles <groan>. In fact the category mess is often so bad that there are a couple of wikiprojects devoted just to sorting out categories. I think the bottom line is that lists (if well maintained) CAN be an invaluable centralised index for articles. All the WP articles of one particular flavour (list of companies, list of Pokemon ;) in one place where it is easy for readers to find things they want and navigate either using the back button or using tabbed browsing. That's one reason I started working on List of Cambodia-related topics after a previous AfD. I'm part of Wikiproject Cambodia, which is fairly new, and we'd like to know where all the articles about Cambodia are - how many are there, on what topics and what topics are missing. So I started going through the categories and watchlisting them to keep them spam free and make it easy to find them again. Check out this 'list' of categories I've found so far User:Paxse/Sandbox5. Scary isn't it? There are still some I haven't checked out and watchlisted and I've seen 3 NEW Cambodia categories created in the last few weeks. Compare that with List of Cambodia-related topics. Which is easier to navigate and maintain? I think the real problem is that some lists tend to be badly neglected. In that sense the AfD's have been very positive in raising the issue of spam and vandalism in poorly maintained lists. But that's a relatively easy problem to fix - add a couple of lists to your watchlist, clean 'em up and keep an eye on them. Better still expand them with good links to notable things. That's my take on these lists anyway. Sorry for the belated reply and the long rant :) Cheers, Paxse 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This list is the largest article on Wikipedia (600k in size). To ensure centralised discussion on what to do with it, could any interested editors please discuss the issue over at the list's talk page. → AA ( talk) — 16:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Two new articles, Mountain peaks of the United States and Mountain peaks of North America seem to be excellent candidates for lists. Responding to my suggestion, one of the authors said that they did not meet the criteria. Maybe a reader here could weigh in one way or the other. Thanks.-- Appraiser 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear colleagues
WP's Manual of Style has been expanded to include a summary of the recently overhauled MOSNUM submanual. Featured List candidates are explicitly required to follow these guidelines, as are all WP articles.
At issue are the new Sections 9–14:
More detailed information on these and other topics is at WP:MOSNUM. Tony 06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Quoting myself from Wikipedia talk:Lists#Question about categorical lists -
Are there any guidelines about categorized or hierarchical lists, specifically "Unsorted", "Miscellaneous" or "Other" headings? IMO this is far worse than a trivia section in an article, as the whole point of a categorized list is to organize by topic. For a specific example, I would like to point out List of vegetable oils (a featured list), with an "Other oils" section. This section will not be interesting for people to read. Just glancing at it, I see that further headings could be made for "Medicine", "Cosmetics" and "Insecticides".
These sections can make the article look unreliable (see: List_of_edible_seeds#Miscellaneous), and can also mean that the item does not meet the requirements of the list (see: List_of_fruits#Unsorted). I did put the Template:expert in those, which I know makes it look worse.
Could some guideline be made about this? I would love to have an unsorted template (like Template:Trivia) to put into such lists. My basic idea is this: if an item cannot be categorized then it probably does not belong on that categorical list. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists concerning the Wikipedia:Contents subpages, and specifically on the namespace they belong in. Thanks. -- Quiddity 17:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Given the confusion I've seen in AfD discussions, I'd like to add the following sentence to Wikipedia:Lists#Criteria for inclusion in lists: "Review Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for further clarification (see also WP:NOT#DIR)." My reasonings are set out in full at User:Sidatio/Conversations/On_list_guidelines#Alternate_proposal:_clarification_and_alteration_of_up_to_three_policies. I'm bringing it up here before implementing such a change to see if there are objections. :) (And also to ask anyone else interested in joining the conversation at User:Sidatio/Conversations/On_list_guidelines to please chime in. The conversation is flagging. :)) -- Moonriddengirl 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi folks, WP:FLC is an important process and is currently suffering from a lack of reviewers. If anyone would be interested in helping review some lists, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Scorpion 0422 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it alright to archive the discussion thread "Lists versus categories: a very particular case"? It only has archival values now. Thanks. Aditya( talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)