This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
|
||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
For lists involving subjective categorization - such as List of video games considered the best and List of massacres in France - there is the risk that we place WP:UNDUE emphasis on a minority view, as well as the risk that we engage in WP:OR by including as comparable two topics that no reliable source would say are comparable.
Some articles, like List of video games considered the best, address this by requiring that multiple reliable sources have considered the game among the "best/greatest of all time", but others do not. Given the core policy issues that failure to do this can and does cause, I suggest we modify this guideline to include something like the following under "Selection criteria":
Selection criteria for lists involving subjective categorization
To comply with core policies on neutrality and original research topics should only be included unqualified in a list involving subjective categorization, such as List of video games considered the best or List of massacres in France, if the view that the categorization applies is the view of the majority in published, reliable sources. If the view that the categorization applies is held by significant minority then the topic can be included alongside appropriate qualification that makes it clear that its inclusion is not the majority view.
This is particularly important when the category is covered by MOS:PUFFERY or MOS:LABEL.
Much of the wording is taken from WP:UNDUE. This follows on from a discussion at WT:NOR. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Trying to exclude "subjective" information unless you can produce six sources for it can cause pretty serious NPOV problems.I agree, which is why I haven't proposed that - but my question for the rest is if we can't say that x is y in the article on x because it would violate WP:UNDUE, why can we say that x is y on a list? BilledMammal ( talk) 04:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
view of the majority in published, reliable sources, the intent of that sentence is to determine whether a view is the majority view, using the same definition of "majority view" as WP:UNDUE does. However, if you feel my wording deviates from the meaning used at UNDUE then it would need to be changed. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
the majority of published reliable sources; I used the wording
view of the majority in published, reliable sources. The difference as I see it is that it isn't talking about counting sources, it is about determining what the majority view is. However, I wonder if it would be clearer if reworded to
view of the majority, substantiated with references to commonly accepted reference texts, which is very close to the current wording at WP:DUE.
Finally, I think that if we want to make progress on the underlying problem, the next major step is to help editors understand the difference between subjective and uses a definition that is less familiar to me."Subjective categorization" would be any categorization that is not based on measurable and universally accepted criteria. For example, List of paintings in the Sistine Chapel is not subjective categorization because whether a painting is in the Sistine Chapel is measurable, and being in the Sistine Chapel is universally accepted as being in the Sistine Chapel. However, List of mass killings is a subjective categorization, because, as you said, there is no universally accepted criteria for what constitutes a mass killing.
IMHO lists are in the twilight zone in Wikiepia not really covered regarding suitability to be an article, wp:notability or criteria/procedures for inclusion. So I think that work needs to be done. Regarding the specific topic at hand, to navigate, it should be noted that inclusion on a list is essentially a statement (in the voice of Wikipedia) that the listed item IS what the title of the list is. The fundamental concept should be that the more controversial that implicit statement is, the stronger the sourcing that is required, and where it is controversial it should be noted as such and where appropriate, it should be done with attribution. Of course dealing with that implicit statement as such that doesn't fit neatly into a typical list article format, which is one of the many unresolved areas that need work regarding list articles. Sincerely North8000 (
talk) 23:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion I would like more input from people here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Record_Labels#Artist_lists_in_articles Graywalls I trimmed out a substantial portion of such a list here annd it was reverted. ( talk) 04:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed a user who regularly appears to be adding every any and every actor who appears in any (mostly Australian) television shows, regardless of notability to the television program (for example, the actor may have appeared in only one episode in a unnamed background role). These actors are often added to the cast lists as "guest cast" to entries. The additions seem to be more for "completeness" purposes of listing every cast member who may have an existing page of wikipedia, similar to a directory or IMDB.
Examples: Recent edit of The Lost World (television series) from January 26, 2024
Tales of the South Seas (current page as of January 26, 2024; refer to edits all done on January 26, 2024)
Are there guidelines on whether listing every actor credited in a television, regardless of notability, is permitted on wikipedia as per policies? I am assuming the editor is contributing in good faith, but the contributions appear to be creating a directory similar to what IMDB would be if someone wanted to see if complete cast lists. 50.68.30.200 ( talk) 00:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
|
||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
For lists involving subjective categorization - such as List of video games considered the best and List of massacres in France - there is the risk that we place WP:UNDUE emphasis on a minority view, as well as the risk that we engage in WP:OR by including as comparable two topics that no reliable source would say are comparable.
Some articles, like List of video games considered the best, address this by requiring that multiple reliable sources have considered the game among the "best/greatest of all time", but others do not. Given the core policy issues that failure to do this can and does cause, I suggest we modify this guideline to include something like the following under "Selection criteria":
Selection criteria for lists involving subjective categorization
To comply with core policies on neutrality and original research topics should only be included unqualified in a list involving subjective categorization, such as List of video games considered the best or List of massacres in France, if the view that the categorization applies is the view of the majority in published, reliable sources. If the view that the categorization applies is held by significant minority then the topic can be included alongside appropriate qualification that makes it clear that its inclusion is not the majority view.
This is particularly important when the category is covered by MOS:PUFFERY or MOS:LABEL.
Much of the wording is taken from WP:UNDUE. This follows on from a discussion at WT:NOR. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Trying to exclude "subjective" information unless you can produce six sources for it can cause pretty serious NPOV problems.I agree, which is why I haven't proposed that - but my question for the rest is if we can't say that x is y in the article on x because it would violate WP:UNDUE, why can we say that x is y on a list? BilledMammal ( talk) 04:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
view of the majority in published, reliable sources, the intent of that sentence is to determine whether a view is the majority view, using the same definition of "majority view" as WP:UNDUE does. However, if you feel my wording deviates from the meaning used at UNDUE then it would need to be changed. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
the majority of published reliable sources; I used the wording
view of the majority in published, reliable sources. The difference as I see it is that it isn't talking about counting sources, it is about determining what the majority view is. However, I wonder if it would be clearer if reworded to
view of the majority, substantiated with references to commonly accepted reference texts, which is very close to the current wording at WP:DUE.
Finally, I think that if we want to make progress on the underlying problem, the next major step is to help editors understand the difference between subjective and uses a definition that is less familiar to me."Subjective categorization" would be any categorization that is not based on measurable and universally accepted criteria. For example, List of paintings in the Sistine Chapel is not subjective categorization because whether a painting is in the Sistine Chapel is measurable, and being in the Sistine Chapel is universally accepted as being in the Sistine Chapel. However, List of mass killings is a subjective categorization, because, as you said, there is no universally accepted criteria for what constitutes a mass killing.
IMHO lists are in the twilight zone in Wikiepia not really covered regarding suitability to be an article, wp:notability or criteria/procedures for inclusion. So I think that work needs to be done. Regarding the specific topic at hand, to navigate, it should be noted that inclusion on a list is essentially a statement (in the voice of Wikipedia) that the listed item IS what the title of the list is. The fundamental concept should be that the more controversial that implicit statement is, the stronger the sourcing that is required, and where it is controversial it should be noted as such and where appropriate, it should be done with attribution. Of course dealing with that implicit statement as such that doesn't fit neatly into a typical list article format, which is one of the many unresolved areas that need work regarding list articles. Sincerely North8000 (
talk) 23:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion I would like more input from people here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Record_Labels#Artist_lists_in_articles Graywalls I trimmed out a substantial portion of such a list here annd it was reverted. ( talk) 04:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed a user who regularly appears to be adding every any and every actor who appears in any (mostly Australian) television shows, regardless of notability to the television program (for example, the actor may have appeared in only one episode in a unnamed background role). These actors are often added to the cast lists as "guest cast" to entries. The additions seem to be more for "completeness" purposes of listing every cast member who may have an existing page of wikipedia, similar to a directory or IMDB.
Examples: Recent edit of The Lost World (television series) from January 26, 2024
Tales of the South Seas (current page as of January 26, 2024; refer to edits all done on January 26, 2024)
Are there guidelines on whether listing every actor credited in a television, regardless of notability, is permitted on wikipedia as per policies? I am assuming the editor is contributing in good faith, but the contributions appear to be creating a directory similar to what IMDB would be if someone wanted to see if complete cast lists. 50.68.30.200 ( talk) 00:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)