Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:37, 3 February 2014

• WT:SAL
• WT:MOSSAL

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations. Lists This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12

Content and style guideline

There have been several moves of this guideline from Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) and back. Discussion such as this indicates that there is awareness that the page contains both content and style advice, so some unwillingness to pin it down as one form of guideline or other. The move in January to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) without a discussion was, in the circumstances, unhelpful, though these things are likely to happen when there is such doubt, and there hasn't been a conclusive discussion on the best way forward.

Possible ways forward are:

1. The guideline is renamed back to Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists as that doesn't put it in any particular group, and allows the guide to cover both style and content advice.
2. The guide is rewritten to focus on either content or style, and relevant material is moved out to the most appropriate page.
3. The page is split into something like Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists (content) and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists).

There will be other possibilities.

As part of any discussion, it might be helpful to indicate that WP:SALAT, WP:LISTPEOPLE, WP:LISTCOMPANY and most of WP:LSC are not style discussions, but content inclusion; and these these sections make up the bulk of the page. SilkTork * 09:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• What is the essential difference between this page and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (lists)? The MOS (lists) page seems to be covering all the style issues pertaining to lists. This page is mainly covering content and notability issues. There is barely any style content. And where there is, it is redundant to MOS (lists). For example, Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(lists)#Types_of_lists covers the types/formats of lists, as does Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(stand-alone_lists)#General_formatting - having two similar sections can lead to problems as they will need monitoring to ensure they aren't edited in different directions. SilkTork * 10:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly support your ideas—this mess has been around for far too long. Wish I had more time to help do something about it though... Uniplex (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think what you're saying is that there is good reason for one page to cover content and the other style, but the content part of that should not fall under the MoS umbrella? If so, I agree. As for the name suggestion, how about Misplaced Pages:Writing a list? —WFC— 21:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• • We have Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lists, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. We also have Help:List. I'm looking at the relationship between them, and how we can best organise them. The Help:List page is the technical "how to write a list" page dealing with formatting. The Manual of Style articles would be the ones to deal with style issues in how to organise and write a list article or a list within an article. Content and notability issues are dealt with in Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(lists)#List_content, Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria, and Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone_lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists, which are contained in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lists, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists.

There is no content and notability material in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Embedded lists, which is purely style related. The difference, though, between an embedded list and a standalone, is that the embedded list is part of an article which presumably already meets notability guidelines. The notability requirements for a standalone article/list are stiffer than for material contained within an existing article. For example, people prefer an album released by a band to be discussed within the article on the band unless the album has achieved notability for itself. The difficulty we have is that a band may have released 20 non-notable albums, and then someone splits out a list of those albums as a standalone page. At that point we need content and notability guidelines; while the list is part of the band's article such guidelines are not needed, all that is required is that the albums are sourced to have been released by the band, not that the albums either by themselves or as a body of work are notable. As such, the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Embedded lists page does not need content advice, while Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists does. I'm just thinking out loud at the moment. SilkTork 12:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My bad. Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(lists)#List_content does not deal with the material, but the layout of a list. SilkTork 12:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now changed the name of that section to List layout. SilkTork 12:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, the obvious solution to this is to merge all the style stuff into MOS:LIST, and move WP:SAL back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of MoS text

I've removed this change because of the reason I noted on this talk page back in October 2010.

When I first reverted this change, I listed two reasons:

• "I have reverted this edit by User:DCGeist from May 26, 2010 which resulted in an undiscussed change of this longstanding style guideline into a content guideline. Based on the edit summary, as well as this discussion I think this may have been an inadvertent mistake while attempting to rename this style guideline with even the {{List navbox}} navigation template still linking to this page as a "style guideline"."
• "The relabeling this "style guideline" as a "content guideline" has resulted in this style guideline being misused as a reason to remove content from articles, directly conflicting with the WP:NNC section of the Notability guideline itself."

While the initial change appeared to be a simple mistake, it resulted in text from this page (which as a "style guideline" was non-controversial) being intentionally misused in an attempt to justify removing verifiable content from lists and articles, which directly conflicts with WP:NNC and the revised WP:LISTN.

Nothing substantial has changed in this regard since October 2010, with WP:LISTNAME and WP:LSC#Common selection criteria still easily misused for gaming and POV editing in order to attempt to justify removing content from lists and articles. Further circular editing has also taken place elsewhere since this MoS page was relabeled as a "content guideline" which makes this change even more problematic.

While I fully understand SilkTork's motivation for this change with regards to lists of people and sympathize with the ongoing problem of inclusion criteria for lists of people, it isn't possible to simply relabel this style guide page as a "content guideline" without collateral damage. Because this page was originally written as a Manual of Style page, simply relabeling it as a "content guideline" is not appropriate because the text which is being misused was never intended to be considered part of a "content guideline". Any true "content guideline" text should instead be split and merged to a content guideline elsewhere after a proper discussion at the talk page of the page to be merged to. Only lists of companies and organizations explicitly states that entries in these lists are not required themselves to be "notable", but this has been repeatedly gamed in other lists and articles (including claims of "all comparison articles are really just lists WP:LISTNAME") in an attempt justify removal of verifiable content. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we had a similar problem with WP:Record charts, another guideline that mixed content and style. It ultimately got split into two separate guidelines, one that is all about style (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Record charts) and one that is all about content (WP:Record charts).—Kww(talk) 12:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, and we already have this situation, basically. MOS:LIST is the style guideline and all style, not content, guidance in this page can easily and immediately be merged into the other. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference in List

I was thinking we should make these list have more general references mandatory. Such as if a list of playstation video games, a list of releases would help. Or a list of Comedies TV series would be referenced in by a third-party source listing them. To give these list more credit and proof that they're "human knowledge".Bread Ninja (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The current warning for adding inappropriate entries to lists indicates that all entries must have an article. This establishes notability without need for a cite in the list. If the entry does not have an article, it is not notable and should not be included in the list. If it is not notable, it should not have an article. - PhD (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

then it's truly not stand-alone? I think we need to revise the guideline....there are a few things that don't make sense.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The reasoning makes sense. If there is no article for the entry, the item is not notable. Lists like List of people from Florida obviously should not include every person from Florida. The criteria for inclusion is, therefore, notability. Yeah, you could provide cites showing substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. However, at that point we should have an article. Additionally, lists require frequent clean-outs ("Gee, this is a list of graduates of Hillman College. I went there. It says anyone can edit. So..."). Without a bluelink, the only way to verify that each entry belongs on the list is to read all of the cites -- an overwhelming task that will never be done. Without bluelinks, each article will need its own inclusion criteria ("Hey, this wedding announcement mentions I went to Hillman..."). The vast majority of "List of" articles are thinly edited and will never receive sufficient attention to establish such criteria. Requiring bluelinks avoids the necessity of re-inventing the wheel. Heck, with articles like List of Christmas carols we have enough of a battle deciding what counts as a Christmas carol, let alone coming up with separate cites for all of them. At least with required bluelinks we have no debates on whether or not the song little Timmy wrote (which was mentioned in his hometown newspaper when he got first prize at his school talent show) is notable or not. - SummerPhD (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please show where is the rule that says everything in a list must have an article or remove it. Any templates which say this should be removed/corrected as they are plainly wrong. Hmains (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The standard, consensus warning uw-badlistentry reads, "In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article to establish notability. If you wish to create such an article, please confirm that your subject is notable according to Misplaced Pages's notability policy. Thank you" - SummerPhD (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, should... this is just good advice. It's not an example of a template that says list items must link to articles. —mjb (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So does anyone here have a problem against this proposal? if an independent list article is just made up of individual entries, than being a list based on human knowledge is difficult. So a more respectable list would have a few references. For example if there was List of comedy TV series, there would need to be sources that list comedy TV series out there (again, not saying the articles need to be exclusive to these references but mandatory to have a significant or certain ammount). SO that we can differentiate categories from lists.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:General references aren't always very popular, although I think that lists might be one of the better uses for them. BLP lists probably need to have WP:Inline citations, though. We could at least look at ways to encourage people to add sources.

Summer, your assertions about all entries needing to be notable are unfortunately wrong; you will find the correct advice at WP:LSC. "All entries are notable" is only the first of three common selection criteria patterns for a list. We will have to think about how to correct the misinformation in {{uw-badlistentry}} without overwhelming the users with complexity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a medium of general and specific. references that talk about more general aspects that could be used in more "general" article than a list.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As for if each list item must have a article, I do not agree at all, lists does list things that are not notable enough to get its own articles, see e.g. the featured lists List of awards and nominations received by Aerosmith and Abingdon Boys School discography which will not be able to have articles for each items, but they are still (IMHO) good lists. As for referencing each list item as a must, I do not agree, same rules as for general text should apply, if anyone questions a item, use the general tags and ask for references, if no ref can be found then remove the item. But to demand a ref for each item is a bit harsh. --Stefan 10:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to make any major changes that involve BLPs that will have to be cleared at BLPN or Talk:BLP, not here. And I firmly agree with ""In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article to establish notability. If you wish to create such an article, please confirm that your subject is notable according to Misplaced Pages's notability policy. Thank you"" And you should not be adding unsourced information. Anything contentious should be sourced, and given how many lists have entries that are clearly promotional then it should be clear why we need sources. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Do not agree at all, this policy mean that e.g. you cannot list the players of a football team, even a world cup champion ship team, unless every single one is notable. This have been discussed before and have not gained consensus. Think there was some kind of agreement that the list must be notable, not not its individual items, and there should be able to have aref that describes such a list as notable.--Stefan 11:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thus we have the exception (the reason it says "In general..."). An all-inclusive list (Mayors of Podunk, Wives of Henry VIII, whatever) should be all-inclusive. List of people from Florida certainly should be limited to bluelinks, as should most other lists. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

well everything won't always be sourced. But, what i'm trying to do is separate list articles from categories. I"m saying list shouldn't be made up of only individual entries that are loosely associated to 1 or 2 aspects unless there are sources covering multiple entries at once. For example list of World Cup championship team would need to have sources relating to "Championship teams in history" or something like that, and the source it self would have to give in certain entries. Also, i'm not saying every entry has to be "notable" but every entry has to be "noted".Bread Ninja (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I was considering starting a small, separate section on the issue of sourcing, in which we could recommend general references for many purposes and inline citations for contentious BLP issues. It might also be worth saying that (as I've been told) the reason many old lists are unref'd is because back in the day, lists weren't supposed to have refs.

But then it occurred to me that this is supposedly a "style" page (although really a hybrid that deals with far more than style), so I wanted to know what you all thought. Would it be helpful to provide a little information along those lines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

List articles without sources would defeat the purpose of "categories" so list have to be notable, unlike "categories". Categories can exist without sources, just depends on the number of articles that relate is significant enough to exist. Still, this article is about "stand-alone" lists (not sister lists that are spun out of a main article.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• The part of this guideline that states: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Misplaced Pages. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future" is all that is needed. Any changes to this guideline, which has been the basis of thousands and thousands of lists would, just mean that the lists' content will be destroyed by the deletion zealots who will go off and delete every red link they find in lists. Hmains (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• regardless....my proposal is to help justify the list itself, not the entries within the list.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It is not 'regardless'. Anything that changes what can be in the lists will only serve the purposes of the deletion zealots, who already waste enough of all our time. Hmains (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's a good thing. It will send the keep everything zealots off on a campaign to create articles so that we can peacefully delete articles about Timmy's garage band and Jenny's favorite gym teacher. I tend to agree that we need some kind of evidence that a list topic is notable. Otherwise, we end up with "List of vegetables that are sometimes purple" or "List of fictional modes of transportation". As for what belongs in the list, I generally have no problem with bluelinks and find that, when pressed, editors wishing to include a redlink will either provide enough sourcing that I can create an article, create the article themselves or, when they can't find sources, realize that there item isn't really notable. Those rejecting WP:N as the criterion for inclusion will have to deal with the List of people from Florida article without a clear cut guideline. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

See for a previous RFC on this topic. --Stefan 06:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

the deletion zealots value quality over quantity. I'm not in favor of deleting valuable articles or articles with potential value (until it is proven it is not), but lately the deletions happening have been more and more reasonable. But that's not my point. Anything "in favor" of anyone doesn't matter in this discussion. the idea is to justify stand alone list articles by making them reference the list itself. For example if there was hypothetically a List of Zombies characters in Television but the references only support the individual entries and sources about History of Zombies in Television, how would that justify the list? there would need to be sources relating to "list of" or a source listing multiple of that subject more accurately to make it more of a reasonable list that is practical, useful, and a common search. The also helps separate the categories from becoming list articles themselves without proper citation.

here are the main problems i see within the guideline:

• The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination.

• Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names.

First problem i have with the first one is that if we imagine it, the list is possible. Which means we are in control of how many list there are. I highly suggest we remove that. As for the second part, it just needs more clarification and better examples. The first one isn't a stand-alone list anymore and the other barely has any sources at all.

Now this could also help "merge" certain parts of a list that are useful or create a main article sometimes...I'm not saying all will. List have to be practical use. Again, I'm not saying that the list should contain exclusive to these sources but use sources like these to justify the list itself. For example, here's an article that already exist: List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles.

Even if every entry was cited with a reliable source, what would make this list practical? What separates category from Stand alone list article?Bread Ninja (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that relatively recently we added WP:LISTN to WP:N, which discusses what type of notability we look at for the grouping of the list. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is a more specific form. there saying if the topic is notable, than a list of the topic is justified. Which is a bit at odds with.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

that's too general,and not always applicable. What is meant, if a type of person, thing, or organization is notable in general, and if specific things, people, or organization of that type are individually notable, then a list of the ones that Misplaced Pages has articles on is justified (as well as a category). The two are complementary as aids to navigation. If there are no notable individual articles here, there's nothing to navigate. If the overall concept isn't notable, then no individual exemplifying the concept will have an article because of that, it will just be incidental, and there is usually n reason for someone to navigate to find other instances of the same unimportant characteristic. List have the advantages of categories in navigation in giving some idea of context; categories have the advantage of lists, of being self-maintaining. Misplaced Pages is written not primarily for the benefit of those who write it, but for those who read it, and anything that helps them find information whether for a directed purpose or for browsing is a good idea.

The other type of list, is the list article when individual instances are not notable enough for an article, or there is not enough information for an article, but a sentence or too about each is reasonable coverage. There is no sharp cutoff here: it's a way of dealing with borderline notability--or, in some cases, with technical notability but not enough information to support full articles. There is a way of including individual sections of articles in categories, but we don't usually do that. We can make redirects, though, and include them in categories, if we think it worth the trouble. Again, it's a matter of judgment in individual situations about how much to say. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

How is it too general? I think we need to figure out what needs to be categorization and what can be both category and list article. Treat list articles in similar fashion as main articles.22:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is already covered in the Notability policy. WP:LISTN states: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Misplaced Pages articles." And if they don't have to be notable, they don't need to have an article (because they're not eligible for one anyways). The Transhumanist 23:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

List of people from East St. Louis, Illinois

I'm pretty sure one notable person was left out. His name is Alvin Randolph, who played Pro Football with the San Francisco Forty- Niners. (Wide Receiver) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.248.142 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Misplaced Pages is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Misplaced Pages community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusing guidelines for list titles

Current text at WP:LISTNAME: "The name or title of the list should simply be List of ___ (for example list of Xs). A list of lists of X could be at lists of X or list of X: e.g., lists of people, list of sovereign states."

Things I find puzzling about these two sentences:

1. First sentence says that the title of the list--which I read to mean "any list"--should be "List of X", and then the second sentence says something different for how to title a list of lists, without reconciling the contradiction. I suggest either changing the first sentence to say "generally" instead of "simply", or changing the second sentence to specify that lists of lists are an exception to that rule.
2. The second sentence gives two formats for how to title a list of lists, and two examples; the first example illustrates the first format, but the second example a) doesn't illustrate the second format, b) doesn't illustrate the first format, and c) is not a list of lists at all. I don't know if perhaps List of sovereign states used to be a list of lists of sovereign states, but it doesn't appear to be such now. I suggest replacing that link with one that does use the format "List of X" for a list of lists of X. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Fix it. I would prefer that "Lists of" and "List of x lists" be phased out and the titles cleaned up. Lists are subject to expansion (WP:SPLIT) and can include as many pages as required. Note that Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (long lists) includes within its scope lists that are split subtopically. Oddly, it doesn't provide any guidance or examples of subtopically split lists.

How big is this problem? Entering (Lists|lists) into Grep produces the following list (without the numbering - using WikEd's REGEX feature I replaced \n\n with ]]\n# [[ to add link brackets and numbered bullets):

The Transhumanist 22:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not an absolute rule. There are times when "list" doesn't appear at all in the title, despite the page obviously being a list when you look at it. I've clarified the wording. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

List of dogs vs. List of birds

It should stipulate that these guidelines should not be literally followed if doing so leaves the title insufficient to know what it's a list of. Compare List of pigs vs. List of birds. It's not clear from the title if "list of dogs" is going to be a la "Snoopy, Pluto, Astro"; "Raccoon dog, Dingo, African Wild dog" or what it actually is. Titles should say what they have to in order to clearly state what the list is, and if these guidelines interfere with that, everyone should be reasonable and not strictly apply them. It should be "List of famous dogs" and "list of bird species". Chrisrus (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, standardization is needed, but not just on the stand-alone list level, as Misplaced Pages supports section links. Naming of sections containing such lists need to be covered as well. We need a naming standard for all lists, wherever they may be. See:

• List of humans
• Pig#Species
• List of dog breeds
• List of historical and fictional birds
• Apes

• Ape#Classification and evolution
• List of apes
• List of fictional apes

• List of monkeys

There's a relevant essay: Misplaced Pages:Ambiguous words. Perhaps it can be expanded into a guideline, and then a link provided on the list guidelines.

But even more important than a standard, we need volunteers to clean up this mess. There are probably hundreds of ambiguously titled lists. The Transhumanist 22:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding essay to list

I attempted to add WP:Viability of lists to this list and was reverted. The list was created originally with the intention of an accompaning essay for WP:LISTN. I only recently finished it (having forgotten about it for some time). I wanted to go ahead and add it here as well since it deals with stand alone lists. If you feel something is amiss, please feel free to change it.∞陣内Jinnai 17:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Queen's thingums

I know that it may sound trivial, but some editors get an itch in their pants over the smallest things, and I'd like to avoid embarrassment for all parties. Especially me. So I come seeking the wisdom of the mages found here.

List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II has a section devoted to things named after the Queen; this is divided up into monuments, hospitals, roads and so on. Once upon a time, a diligent and hard-working editor pulled out all the things located in Canada and inserted them into a list of things named after various royal people in Canada, helpfully named Royal eponyms in Canada. Another editor, two years later, found the list and added a government building in Regina to the list, as it was named after the Queen, it was a building, and it slotted neatly in between a sports centre in Queensland and a quay in Sierra Leone. The sixteen-story building was promptly demolished by the diligent and hard-working editor on the grounds that it was a bad edit because the building was listed elsewhere - in the Canadian-only list.

I've stepped in, but I find that the diligent and hard-working editor is now throwing monkey faeces back at me, and I find this most uncomfortable. Could I enlist some wise eyes to review things here, please? --19:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Try to be neutral when making requests like this; passive aggressive attacks like "throwing monkey faeces" aren't at all necessary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is an accurate statement of my feelings in this matter and why I am moved to seek the oversight of those who are not bespattered. --Pete (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no general principle that gives you the One True™ Answer. Specifically, there is no rule that any article can't be included in a hundred lists, and there's equally no rule that anything has to be present in more than one list.

This is all about the list selection criteria. The list selection criteria are supposed to be described at the top of the list. (If nobody's done that yet, then fix it.) You should be able to look at the top of that list and see exactly what's supposed to be included in that list. The description at List #1 tells you what you're allowed to put in list #1. List #1 has no right to declare that List #2 is not permitted to include anything that is already listed at List #1, and List #2 has no right to tell List #1 what to include. Unless the "Titles and honours" list actually says that Canadian items are not permitted in the "Titles and honours" list, then the fact that it's a Canadian building is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll work on appropriate list selection criteria. As I see it, "things" is not specific enough to exclude immaterial items such as prizes or awards or scholarships - we're listing material items such as bridges and hospitals. And there's no reason to exclude Canadian hospitals. --Pete (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a simple matter of organisation. Nothing says there can't be two identical lists or one list that's partly comprised of a whole list that exists elsewhere; but, does it always make sense to do that? Is that the only thing that can be done? These are the questions being asked to the editor proposing duplication and to which no answers are forthcoming. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If List #1 decides that they want to partly or completely duplicate List #2, then it is not up to the editors at List #2 to tell them to stop. The editors at List #2 do not WP:OWN the content.

If you want to persuade the folks at List #1 that your approach is better, then you need to focus on winning friends and influencing people rather than on trying to find a rule that says you're right and they're wrong and so they have to do it your way.

I also point out that if you take this through dispute resolution, the most likely outcome is that List #2 (the Canadian-specific list) will simply be merged out of existence, and then it will all be in List #1. So if you're wishing for a non-voluntary resolution, I advise you to be careful what you wish for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't refer to any rules; in fact, I said there were no rules. What I said was: this is a matter of organisation; what's the most logical way to organise the information, specifically. Doubling the info (and the work) up doesn't seem to fit that end. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, repeating the information in two places could double the work (from "almost nothing" to "a little bit"). But a perfectly sensible, logical method of reducing that duplication of effort is to eliminate the Canadian-specific list. Is that what you want? Creating one complete list is at least as logical as demanding that the other folks create an incomplete list so that they don't voluntarily spend their time duplicating your efforts.

The bottom line is still consensus, and it is still difficult to convince people that your idea is a better than theirs when you are taking an adversarial role. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a different opinion of my tone, and a different experience in this matter (plus others with Pete/Skyring) than yours.

Regardless, of course consensus is the desired result. If that means merging a section of one list into another, so be it. Eliminating the section of the Canadian-specific list isn't necessarily the right way to do so, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is required when another editor tries to do something one doesn't want, but not when one is trying to sneak something past others who may object. Miesanical, you seem to be painting yourself into a corner. Things can exist as entries in multiple lists, and you may leave Royal eponyms in Canada alone or add to it if you can find further items for inclusion - though I do think you should find a more accessible title for your article. List of things named after Queen Elizabeth II is (or will be) a different list entirely, even if there is a small overlap with several other lists, such as List of hospitals in Canada. There is no requirement to merge two quite different lists merely because a few items appear on both lists. --Pete (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It still seems you don't understand consensus; what you say about it above makes no sense; not in this context, anyway. As for the rest: if you want duplication, so be it. And, in that case, I hope you'll keep the two lists consistent as one or the other is added to; it would be odd, and thus confusing, for one list to have entries the other doesn't. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Minimum number of items on a list

Hi. Could anyone point me in the direction to the guideline on what is the minimum number of entries a list can have. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have such a guideline. We are not even clear on what constitutes a list - see Misplaced Pages talk:Featured list criteria. The FL people apparently regard a list as anything that the FA people reject. The closest anyone there could come to a definition is Goodraise who said: "to qualify as a stand-alone list, an article needs to have what I'd call a 'list character'". WP:List says: "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings)." And this guideline for stand alone lists says: "Stand-alone lists are articles that primarily consist of lists of links, data or information."

As a list is a number of items, the minimum could be understood as at least two items. Would you be able to make a standalone article out of just two items? Probably. We have an article with just three items - U.S. state bats. And there may be articles with just two items. SilkTork 16:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone had brought up a list with 4 items on it at FL some time ago and was rejected as too short (the list page still exists though). They used to have a minimum of 10 items, but they dropped that requirement some time ago as they were constantly making exceptions for 8 or so and on occasion as low as 6 or 7. However, I'd say that those latter ones with 6-7 had to have a good reason they couldn't be incorporated as they've also rejected similarly short lists. I got one of those shorter lists (7 items) FL status. They've also more rarely rejected ones with higher numbers though, so there is no hard-and-fast rule, but I'd day if its <5, it probably isn't enough.∞陣内Jinnai 19:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Jinnai's account, while not exactly incorrect, is somewhat out of date. There was an informal consensus that particularly short lists should not be awarded featured status. In the absence of such a criterion in WP:WIAFL, many reviewers arbitrarily picked a number and opposed nominations with less items than that. While this kept short lists out, it wasn't a good solution in the long run. We Wikipedians don't seem to like arbitrarily chosen thresholds. Also, we wanted every list that should exist to be eligible for featured status. Our trouble was that the community hadn't provided us with a means of determining which lists should exist. While stand-alone lists were considered articles back then as well as now, WP:N did not yet discuss them. It does now, but it still does not explain what "stand-alone" means or doesn't mean. Practice shows that some lists are not expected to comply with the GNG. One might argue that a "List of Some Series episodes" is an article, but not a "stand-alone" one, that it somehow inherits, not notability, but some sort of justification of its existence from its parent article. To make due with what little community-wide consensus we had, we came up with criterion 3b. In essence, we grabbed for the nearest straw to pull us out of the mud. That straw was WP:CFORK. But to answer the original question, there is no minimum number. If your list meets the GNG, you're on the safe side. If it doesn't meet the GNG, but isn't a CFORK either, you need not fear coming to FLC. However, as the featured list criteria are right now, relying on CFORK, rather than something like WP:N, it is not unheard of for featured lists to show up at AfD. As for two-item "lists", I don't think any list with two items will ever pass FLC. Two items just isn't enough to give an article "list character". At FLC, I'd point the nominator of such an article to FAC. Goodraise 00:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

While WP:N doesn't talk too much about lists, there is WP:Viability of lists which was created as an accompanying essay to WP:LISTN.∞陣内Jinnai 22:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Lugnuts (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

List of local chapters/branches/outlets

I understand the thinking behind the recent edit introducing the notion that "Lists of sub-chapters of notable organizations are problematic"; however, having just explored the nature of such lists with the Fraternities WikiProject, and seen a good example of such a list, and not having seen a consensus view that such lists should be discouraged, I'm not certain that the wording is helpful. Nor am I certain that this is the place to be dealing with such specifics - it may be that WP:CLUB would be a better place. SilkTork 09:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I could go either way with that: it's probably going to be dull content, but it might be the result of a WP:SPLIT that dramatically improves the main article. I wonder whether it would might make more sense to address it at WP:ORG than here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have moved it to WP:ORG, and reworded slightly to incorporate ideas from above. SilkTork 10:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Items in a list should be cited

This MOS is missing an important point: To include an item in a stand-alone-list, it should be cited. Not having this requirement (pushing the citation to the linked target article) allows folks to bypass WP:V by a wide margin. Toddst1 (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you may misunderstand WP:V, which is about the possibility of finding a reliable source (that is, has any reliable source ever published this before?), not about whether someone has already typed a citation onto the page. A completely unreferenced list can be 100% compliant with WP:V (unless it contains a direct quotation). Please read the summary at WP:MINREF and think about the difference between content that is verifiable and content that is verified. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the flaw in the policy by citing it. Example: Add George Washington to List of convicted war criminals. That's why we need to require citations on lists. See Disadvantages of lists, the first part of #5. The second bullet in WP:LISTPEOPLE also applies here, but I see no reason it would be limited to people. Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem you give is not specific to lists. You could just as easily add "George Washington was convicted of war crimes" as a sentence in an article. It isn't possible to verify that statement, and so it should be removed from articles and lists—but (since Washington is dead) it's not actually required by any policy to have an inline citation up until the moment that someone (you?) WP:CHALLENGEs the claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, that's when you would tag something with {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} - but as it is now, we have folks that think it's ok to have unreferenced lists and lists about living people where folks believe they're not BLPs. (There are many more examples. Apologies for picking on these editors) That's why I brought up that lists need to be verifiable - without following the links - just like articles themselves and should have citations. Toddst1 (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Stand-alone lists are Misplaced Pages articles; so are subject to Misplaced Pages's content policies, such as verifiability". I don't think it needs to be said any clearer than that. Goodraise 15:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thx. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay is obviously correct, but you seem to have either misunderstood or ignored WhatamIdoing's point. There is nothing wrong with tagging an unreferenced list as {{unreferenced}} (indeed, this should be done agressively). But a completely unreferenced list can nonetheless meet WP:V. Taking List of investment banks as an example, the existence of bluelinks is evidence enough that the content is verifiable (and thus that it shouldn't be deleted on WP:V grounds). It is of course not acceptable to leave it at that, hence the existence of tags such as {{unreferenced}}. —WFC— 18:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes: The rules are the same for (non-navigational) "lists" as for "articles". And the rules do not say that any page (whether in list form or not) is required to cite any references at all (unless it contains a direct quotation or contentious matter about a BLP)—up until the moment that someone challenges the content on the page (not, by the way, merely notes that there are currently no citations on the page; unref is sometimes a useful cleanup tag to add, but "Hey, this page is WP:NOTDONE!" does not actually constitute a challenge to the content).

Toddst, I think the problem is that you still don't understand exactly what "verifiable" means. If someone could go to his local library or his favorite web search engine and find a reliable source that supports the information on the page, then that page is already verifiable, even though it contains zero citations. What you're talking about is your desire for the page to be verified, which is not actually required by any policy (except when the four narrow situations at WP:MINREF apply). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not quite. Part of our verifiability policy is that we've at least identified a source; it should be added in due time to an article to support the fact, but not including it at all is not correct. We can't just add info, have no source, and say "Oh, just look in your local library for it" because the reader has no idea where to go.

When it comes back to this specific question, I think the need to source every element (assuming there is no single source that already does this en masse) depends on the degree of contentious of the fact being claims. A list of people (all notable with their own articles) from a specific city likely doesn't need a source for each element as long as the information is clear from the individual articles. On the other hand, lists of people that evoke a religious, political, or other social trait (ala LBGT) probably need to have a cite for each entry since this information may be buried within the article in the question even if sourced. WP:V still applies to all, but its taking into consideration of the contentious nature of the topic (eg : what was added to the policy page is certainly not wrong, but now its more the finer details of using it). --MASEM (t) 18:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Masem, you know that I support the inclusion of sources, but the fact is that the WP:V policy does not actually say that we need to have identified a source. If I happen to type "the human hand normally contains four fingers and one thumb"—a statement that does not fall afoul of any of the four WP:MINREF items—then I don't need to have identified a source for that material to comply with WP:V.

Once there has been a challenge to the material—once someone actually asks for a source for that particular material—then "Oh, just look in your local library for it" is inappropriate (per BURDEN), but unless and until someone actually asks for a source for that material, then that material is fully compliant with WP:V's actual requirements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I agree with that; I'm just concerned that when we're talking anything but trivial facts, "verifiability" is not simply pointing the reader to find it themselves; sources are important, more and more as the fact can be considered contentious. To this discussion, we can point readers to the individual articles that are listed on the list, but the more contested the fact, the more likely we should have that source on the list as well. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, So just to be clear, {{Prod blp/dated}} applies to stand-alone lists. Toddst1 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I would support that, because lists of or about living people have the same potential issues as the articles about the people themselves. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that too for lists which focus on a BLP (such as List of awards and nominations received by Stephen Lang), but the place to make that decision is Misplaced Pages talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. —WFC— 21:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I see the addition, but not sure I agree on the language (the intent's right).

Take the addition's example of a "List of fruit". Of course we wouldn't source that an apple is a fruit, but we may have something obscure like vanilla which I just learned now is a fruit (but not that I was begging to know that, just trying to find an example). However, is the fact that vanilla is a fruit something contentious? Not really.

Where I'm going with this is the idea of consistency. As soon as you say "ok, I need to source this element on this list", then every element should be sourced, even if that is obvious. Consensus can choose to source nothing (though if there are non-blue-link terms, I would source those if the rest are unsourced, if they're to be sourced on a item by item basis). But it should not be a mix where , in a list with all blue-links, where some terms are sourced, and some are not.

So how to define when to source then? My rule of thumb would be, if for any spot check element on the list, I can hit up its article and within the lead paragraphs and/or infobox, and always hit that piece of information, it does not need a source on a list page. So back to List of Fruit, since all fruits appear to be identified as fruits in the lead of their respective articles, there's no need to source any of them. On the other hand, I would figure that with contentious topics that each and every entry should be sourced, as while the contentious fact may be in the lead for some elements, it likely won't be there for them all. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't work. We don't use Misplaced Pages as a source. Of course you don't need to cite obvious things but with the unsourced BLP rule, each article about a living person (and a list is an article) it must have at least one source. Using citations in the linked article is using Misplaced Pages as a source and that article may or may not have that information sourced. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's ignore BLP because that's a special case where erring on the "source each entry" side is the right approach.

Instead I would argue that if one is trying to determine if a fact is contentious for all elements of a list, to spot check the leads; yes, a fact in the lead may not be appropriately sourced in the body, but on the larger scale, if a good random sample shows that that fact (X is a fruit, for example) appears in every lead checked, its probably a non-contentious fact - but completely as a rule of thumb. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No let's not ignore the case that proves the necessity. Toddst1 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Masem's point is that for BLP related statements, adequate sourcing is already a necessity, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. —WFC— 06:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages has many list of lists articles."

The guideline currently states that "Misplaced Pages has many list of lists articles." I propose we stop treating those pages as articles and more like disambiguation pages. A new guideline for those pages should be created at Misplaced Pages:Lists of lists. Goodraise 16:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not all Lists of Lists are disambiguation pages. They may be outline-type pages, they may be a means of providing an index to a list spread out over several pages, etc. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider outlines lists. They're more like portals. I think we should differentiate between pages dealing with Misplaced Pages pages and pages dealing with everything else. If a list of lists is nothing but an index of a list spread out over several pages, then it's incomplete. Give it a lead, summarize the linked lists, add references, and you'll have a real article, not some navigational half-breed. Goodraise 18:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Citing sources

I've just boldly created a summary of the above discussions at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing_sources. This isn't exactly typical content for a MoS page, but there's yet another question about this at the other MoS list, and so it seems that we need to get back to the proposal from last August to have a brief section.

What I've added is a plain-language summary of the sourcing policy (with a link to the minimum requirements) and a direct statement that it's the same rules as any regular article. I'm waffling about whether we should call out the BLP provision, since I'm not entirely sure that people will always click through to discover that one, and it's pretty important for certain kinds of BLP-related lists. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Non-navigational lists are treated the same as any other article". Tell me please, what, in your mind, distinguishes a navigational list from a non-navigational list? Until we have consensus on which is what, setting different standards for the two kinds will only lead to chaos. Goodraise 23:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Once you move beyond the obvious pages, like dab pages and navboxes, there's no easy answer and IMO no practical help from a description. Editors are going to have to use their judgment, case by case, every single time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A piece of guideline text requiring editors "to use their judgment, case by case, every single time" is superfluous. Guidelines should provide guidance. This just gives another tool to Wikilawyers. Goodraise 23:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious how you think a wikilawyer will abuse this text. It seems pretty clear to me. Can you give me a hypothetical example of what you're worried about? Someone declaring that their claim that Joe Smith is gay is just as obvious as saying that an apple is a fruit, maybe? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The lack of clarity begins with the first word, "Non-navigational lists". What is that? My worries are not specific. I merely oppose unnecessary expansion of guidelines. What's the point of this section? Why do we need it? As far as I can tell, it serves no purpose. Goodraise 23:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Let us deal with the second question first: This section is needed because people keep asking for exactly this information over and over and over and over and over again, as proven by three separate requests just on this page in the last few months and other requests on other pages. Generally, when people voluntarily request advice repeatedly, it's a sign that we need to be providing that advice.

A disambiguation page is one example of a page that is widely acknowledged to be a navigational list. A disambiguation page is not permitted to contain citations per Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#References: "Do not include references in disambiguation pages". I am not interested in writing this guideline so that it appears to directly conflict with another, long-established guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but whenever someone uses phrases like "... is widely acknowledged", I get the feeling they're trying to get me to accept as true something they can't substantiate. I'm not saying that disambiguation pages are not widely acknowledged to be navigational lists, just that this is the first I've heard of it and that I doubt it. Anyway, disambiguation pages, unlike stand-alone lists, are not articles, meaning this guideline doesn't, or rather shouldn't, cover them. I will acknowledge that we need to make some sort of change somewhere. However, I think this new section is a step in the wrong direction. Only pages intended to be articles should be referred to as stand-alone lists. These pages, like all other articles, should have to comply fully with WP:V. All other pages with list character, like disambiguation pages, outlines and the elusive "navigational list" pages should be discussed elsewhere. Alternatively, and I'm warming up to the idea as I'm writing this, we could redefine stand-alone lists to be any page (article or not) with list character and create a page called Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/List articles, discussing stand-alone lists that are also articles. The problem we will have to solve eventually is defining which is what. That, unlike regurgitating policy on style guideline pages using ill-defined terms, would be a step in the right direction. Goodraise 03:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

"Non-navigational lists" == "pages with list character intended to be articles". This guideline doesn't apply to those any other kind of page, and the point of this phrase is to indicate that all this stuff about providing citations to list-articles doesn't apply to list-shaped-non-articles, either. We do not want someone to cite this guideline as advice on what to do for a dab page or outline.

I honestly do not expect any good-faith experienced editor to have much trouble figuring out whether a particular list is navigational in nature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, then we can simply state explicitly that disambiguation pages and outlines are not covered by this guideline. First half of the problem solved. Leaves only the navigational natured non-article list pages. Perhaps you could give an example of such a page. I haven't come across any of those yet. Goodraise 04:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Other guidelines, and other parts of this guideline, make reference to the existence of lists that are primarily intended to be navigational rather than informational, and I see no reason to pretend that they don't exist merely because you've never seen a list that you personally would classify that way. If you'd like an example, I have no idea how most editors would choose to classify Acute leukemia. Is that a list at all? A surprisingly information-free informational list? A very functional navigational list? Additionally, some editors feel that this page ought to apply to navboxes, which have a list character and obviously have a primary function of navigation. Rather than naming each and every possible permutation of a navigational list, I think it better to merely state that if the page's purpose is, in your best judgment, primarily navigational, then this section does not apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Other guidelines"? Name them please, so I can read them for myself. I'll assume (correct me if I'm wrong) with "other parts of this guideline" you mean the sentence "These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers." This is not a reference to navigational natured non-article lists, but to a particular kind of stand-alone list (aka. list article). Most editors (including me) would classify Acute leukemia as a set index article. It even links there itself, using {{SIA}}. Goodraise 05:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• This conversation started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Should_every_single_item_on_a_list_have_a_reference.3F. We just need to clearly state you don't need a reference for every single item on a list. And that you shouldn't remove items just because there isn't a reference, but instead because you looked at them, and honestly don't believe they belong there. Dream Focus 00:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps a discussion about when to challenge material would be appropriate. What do you think of something with this sort of basic meaning:
  "As with other articles, you may WP:CHALLENGE material that you believe is inaccurate or unverifiable by {{fact}}-tagging it, discussing it on the talk page, removing it, etc. As with other articles, you should not, however, challenge material that you are reasonably convinced is accurate and possible to verify in reliable sources merely because the page is WP:NOTDONE/the citations have not been typed in. In those instances, you should follow the WP:Editing policy's instructions on how to WP:PRESERVE information and collaborate with others to improve the list. This is particularly important for older lists, because the community's policies once prohibited the addition of sources to lists."
  That last sentence, BTW, is something I remember running across once, but I don't know where it was or how accurate it is (e.g., if I saw it in an old policy or if I saw someone claiming this). So while I believe it to be true, if we add it, it should probably be followed by a link to an old version of a policy that actually says that. I don't want to accidentally start a false rumor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  I will say that consistency is important. Either no items on the list are cited (either due to being assumed common knowledge, can be determined by click-thru to the linked article, or by the presences of a few references that spell out the contents of the entire list and thus in the lead into the list) or every item on the list is cited. The only case where I can see partial citation being appropriate is if the list, based on assumed common knowledge, is made up of a combination of topics with their own article (blue-linked) and unlinked/redlinked ones. In such cases, every unlinked/redlinked topic absolutely needs a cite even if the fact is presumed common knowledge, since there's no article for the reader to confirm against. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  Why is consistency important? I thought that it was the hobgoblin of little minds. Citations exist to communicate necessary information. They are not decorative elements. Whether it looks funny to have some provided with inline citations and others left uncited is unimportant. If List of fruits wants to include a citation for Honeysuckle, which most people associate with flowers, and not for Apple, then I have no objection to their choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

  It avoids the issue of people landmining {{cn}} tags across a list when the intent of the list is meant to be common knowledge, and acknowledging that when we are linking to an article, we are implicitly providing a way for people to find the sources to support that fact if its common sense. For example, in a List of fruit, as most are obvious either as common sense or from a simple gloss over the sources, it doesn't matter that the fact about the honeysuckle is not well know, but most of the rest of the list is, so it's not necessary. It probably becomes more important in the controversial lists. Say there was a "List of LBGT musicians". It's "common knowledge" that someone like Elton John and k.d. lang are on there, but most of the rest aren't, nor is it a type of fact immediately obvious or necessary to summarize quickly when talking about an artist. So in such a list, most of the other artists will have a source, but it then makes no sense to leave the "obvious" ones bare to be gamed by editors with a chip on their shoulder demanding proof. Yes, easy to add, but a properly-formed list on such a non-common knowledge should have this from the start. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

  Removing the citation from the Honeysuckle entry is not going to stop tagbombers; if anything, it's going to encourage people to remove the accurate entry, in perfectly good faith and due entirely to their own ignorance that the "flower" produces berries. Removing citations to non-common knowledge does not improve the list, and it does risk damage to the list. And if you need a citation on Honeysuckle—say, because that particular entry was challenged and therefore the policy now requires it to perpetually bear an inline citation—then it would be beyond silly to lard the entire rest of the list with citations merely to make it "consistent". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You're both right about a lot of this and just talking past one another. While I agree with the observation that going for GA or FL status is likely going to require that every item on a list be reliably sourced (which does not necessarily mean one source per entry, by the way; a list published reliably off-wiki could be cited once, and would be a reliable source for every entry it had in common with our list), in the interim, we do have the problem that a) people add all sorts of crap to list articles, which need to be cleaned up, and b) other people keep deleting good stuff by accident, by misinterpretation, or to push an agenda. There is absolutely nothing wrong with putting a citation on one or three or twelve entries in a list that is otherwise devoid of citations. I'm a huge fan of consistency – that's why I spend so much time working on MOS – but the notions that either a citation has to be removed because citing isn't consistent, or every entry must be sourced right now or deleted, are both argumentum ad absurdum exaggerations of consistency that would grossly defy common sense. It would be beyond WP:POINTy to pursue either. Anyway, if some jackass is deleting an entry in a list that obviously belongs there just because it has no citation, and some other, even worse, jackass is deleting the citation because it's not "consistent", the obvious solution is to post a challenge of the entry's veracity on the talk page yourself, demanding a citation. Then, by policy, a citation must be provided and must remain in place, meanwhile it would provide reliable sourcing and prevent deletion of the list entry. If you have to sometimes do almost pointy things yourself to get around other people being twits, so be it. I have zero patience for WP:LAWYERly nitpicking that harms encyclopedic content and wastes the time of good editors to just make a point or over-enforce some rule (or usually a misinterpretation of a rule). Just work around such nonsense and ignore it as much as possible to prevent rewarding disruptive editors with the attention they're begging for. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 08:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the sky really blue?

Follow-up of and .

From where do you take that number ("99% of editors")? WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE are essays, not guidelines or policy. If we really need a section dealing with how to reference stand-alone lists (and I'm still saying we don't), then we should at least stick to summarizing what relevant guidelines and policies have to say about it, not cherry-picked essays. Here's what WP:CITE has to say about it: "editors are always encouraged to add or improve citations for any information contained in an article" (emphasis mine). Goodraise 12:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That recently added, undiscussed bold draft overstates matters significantly, and noticeably exceeds the actual standards even for FAs. If you demand a source for a perfectly obvious statement like "An apple is a kind of fruit" or "The human hand normally has four fingers and one thumb", it's going to be considered disruptive behavior. Spamming in citations just because we can is not helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

For some reason I can't quite comprehend you seem to have something against citing sources. As far as articles are concerned, I'm under the impression, correct me if I'm wrong, that you find them aesthetically displeasing. That much I can understand, if not agree with it. What I find really annoying is how you consistently keep your edit summaries and talk page messages free of references to authoritative sources. You simply state your personal opinion and claim it to be widely held consensus. Questions as to what makes you believe that your opinion is the consensus opinion, you simply ignore. Likewise, I'm still waiting for links to those "other guidelines" you didn't name. At best you point to essay pages – essays! – to which you rank among the top contributors.

WP:CITE is not an essay I link to because it agrees with me. It's a guideline. The "recent" addition, as you call it, happened on September 9, 2011. Discussed or not, it's in there. A statement resembling this one on the other hand is not. Now what might be the reason for that? For me it would be pointy to do so, but if you really believe that your depreciation of citation "lard" is shared by consensus, then why not hop over to CITE or WP:V and make an addition along that line? Goodraise 00:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have anything against citations. I do oppose claiming that citations are required when they definitely are not.

For the "other guidelines", I direct you to WP:Notability, which refers, e.g., to "pages whose primary purpose is navigation (i.e., all disambiguation pages and some lists)." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your stance. Anyway, it appears (since you have not addressed my arguments) we are in agreement that this passage does not have guideline level consensus. Would you do the honors of removing it? Goodraise 03:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we're not in agreement. IMO an objection from a single editor does not invalidate the "guideline-level consensus" for the statement. Editors do not expect or require that common knowledge, like whether an apple is a kind of fruit or the number of fingers on the typical human hand, be supported by inline citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course "an objection from a single editor does not invalidate the 'guideline-level consensus' for the statement". The point you're ignoring is that the statement never had guideline-level consensus to begin with. It's not in WP:V and it's not in WP:CITE. You inserted it here and I removed it again. That means there is no consensus for or against the statement on this page. If I were in the habit of making pointy edits, I'd insert a statement to the contrary in the same section, linking it to WP:NOTBLUE and claiming that were the opinion "99% of editors" hold. That statement would have just as much justification to be in this guideline as the one you inserted, i.e. none whatsoever. Anyway, it doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere on our own. I suggest we advertise this discussion at WT:CITE. Agreed? Goodraise 13:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Idea: Prefer to source notable entries in lists in their own articles instead

This issue has been touched on (in a broader, weirder discussion) at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Comments. My own comment, anchored here may be of particular interest. I suggest that the proposal over there (which is doomed) would throw the baby out with the bath water, but that policy could be clarified to recommend that list articles that contain notable entries might not need reliable secondary sources in the list article, just a link to the main article on the notable entry, which would have such sources (or be an AfD target). Absent a case of a notable list entry being controversial and someone demanding a source (or the case of including one being helpful in reducing editwarring), it would be far less tedious for editors and indeed readers to not include redundant piles of citations in list and index articles. I've basically been doing this quite explicitly, with <small>''(see ] for sources)''</small> for several years at Albinism in popular culture as an experiment, and it's rarely raised any concern at all. The multi-section list that article mostly consists of cites no sources itself, except for: a) entries that do not have their own articles; b) entries where editors have challenged or might be likely to challenge the entry's membership in the list; or c) the entry's own article doesn't touch on the subject of the list entry (e.g. because the particular portrayal by the actor wasn't career-important enough to be covered in the actor's own bio article). This has been stable for something like 4 years, and I suggest therefore that this is a good model. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We've got two standards. The first, articles have to meet so they won't be deleted. The second, articles have to meet to be considered good. This page, being part of the MOS, should deal with the latter. I have no problem with list articles relying on such a mechanism to avoid deletion, but in the long run I want them to cite their sources properly. References should be cited where claims are made. Pointing readers in a general direction where they might find what they're looking for is just unprofessional. Goodraise 06:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I didn't express myself clearly enough. So, I'll try to clarify. I'm not talking about specific policies here. Rather, I'm talking about two lines the community draws in practice, dividing Misplaced Pages's content in three groups: a) articles that should be deleted or improved, b) flawed but tolerated articles, and c) articles considered to be of high quality. Goodraise 15:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll land pretty close to Goodraise on this topic. Each and every article, including lists, should be be completely self-sufficient in terms of citations. Every entry should have a citation supporting its inclusion.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There are problems with that idea, though. For one thing, a single work, such as a paper-published list, might actually be a reliable source for most or all of a WP list's entries. It would be utterly absurd to add the same ref. citation to all 748 or whatever entries. We also have a general principle that we don't include citations for everything that could possibly be cited, only things that are not blindingly obvious. No one's ever going to cite a reliable source for the fact that grass is a plant or that eyes perceive light or whatever. No citation is needed to include, say, Sarah Blackwood on a List of female singers from England. Adding citations for things that are blindingly obvious basic facts is not only an insane waste of dwindling editor time, it's really, really annoying to readers, who get a sea of blue in their face for no useful reason. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 08:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Lists of blindingly obvious things are of marginal utility, and one shouldn't warp the policies about how to handle useful lists to cover the trivial ones. There's a reason that we have categories, and List of female singers from England is a perfect example of a list that should actually be a category. Strangely enough, Category:English female singers seems to function perfectly in that regard.—Kww(talk) 11:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, and picking on a poor example doesn't invalidate the thesis. There are any number of lists that could be categories and categories that could be lists, or are already both. E.g., the vast majority of things, like List of anti-war songs, in Category:Music-related lists could be re-done as categories with trivial ease (I'm having a hard time finding one that couldn't and which isn't also an AfD prospect), and a large number of them overlap categories. There is no WP-wide consensus to delete them as lists, and the "lists vs. categories" debate is perennial and unresolvable. Your personal opinion about the utility of such lists is orthogonal to the discussion (and probably matches mine, honestly).

So, to get back to that discussion, I repeat: A single work, such as a paper-published list, might actually be a reliable source for most or all of a WP list's entries. It would be utterly absurd to add the same ref. citation to all 748 or whatever entries. We also have a general principle that we don't include citations for everything that could possibly be cited, only things that are not blindingly obvious. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think your "poor example" was an excellent one. Any list I can think of that your "obviousness" argument applies to would be better served as a category. Your argument about completely reproducing a list from another source would generally be copyright violation. Citations are good things. They don't irritate readers. The little number at the end of a list entry is easily ignored, and the list of references at the bottom of a list article in no way interferes with the readability of a list. While there are editors that aren't sufficiently thorough and careful with their work to provide citations, we shouldn't endorse such behaviour in a guideline.—Kww(talk) 12:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are flat-out mistaken about copyright law. Bare lists of facts are not copyrightable. Anyway, I reiterate (and please don't play WP:IDHT games): There is no WP-wide consensus to convert lists that could be categories into categories and delete them as lists, and the "lists vs. categories" debate is perennial and unresolvable. Your personal opinion about whether we should do so doesn't really have anything to do with this discussion; it's something you should take up at WP:VPP as a proposal if you feel strongly about it. Here's a perfect example of a list that can be cited entirely to one source: List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz. There are many lists based on primary sources like this. I'll even quote you quoting policy below: "Material not supplied by an inline citation may be supported with WP:General references". Inline citations are emphatically not required in such cases. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I see no contribution later than -03-02 here or in the related discussion at WP:LIST talk, which is hatnoted in this section. Is it somewhere under discussion as we say ( WP:STANDALONE#Citing sources)? -P64 ...

Concrete example

(not standalone but quite to the points, I believe)

Kate Greenaway Medal#Shortlists is not standalone but it makes a good exhibit for several points of discussion here. I revised the article heavily a fortnight ago --pushing this list further down the page while barely touching it. Last hour I returned and provided references for the "2012" and "2011" sublists, linked to one superscript for each.

Current state of affairs pertinent to verification: list comprises 17 annual award shortlists headed by dates YYYY.

1. The first two 2012/11 and last four 1998/95 have six distinct references, each linked once by superscript at the annual date.
2. Eleven 2010 to 2000 are unreferenced here and in the entire article.
3. The entire list is tagged {{citation needed}}, obscurely by yours truly, displayed tight up against {{incomplete section}} in a hatnote.

I solicit comment on those three matters.

Now suppose another editor finds a print source (2007, 50-year celebration of this award), and transcribes from that source all of the missing annual shortlists, 1999 and 1994 to 1955. How should that editor adapt, extend, or replace the current referencing and tagging? --P64 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by the fact tag. Do you mean {{refimprove|section}}, or do you mean that the assertion that the list is incomplete needs a citation?

I think this whole discussion is a perfect example why there shouldn't be a guideline. Each list should be taken on a list by list case. In the example provided above (Kate Greenaway Medal#Shortlists), I find nothing wrong with the way it is cited. Each citation is clearly set to sections and the citation placement is consistent within the list. Now, if another editor found individual citations for each entry from 2010, where there is currently no citation, than that older citations should be moved to the individual item level, for consistency, so as not to confuse the reader. Dkriegls (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Images in list of people

There is discussion here, regarding the deletion of images from a list of people, that might interest readers of this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Fiction

When is it okay to mix fictional list entries with real ones? Like if there's a list of a certain kind of people, is it okay to add fictional characters in there? — Jeraphine Gryphon  08:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably almost never, or called out in a different section to be clear that one set is real, one set is fictional. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm guessing that means Gregory House shouldn't be on List of Johns Hopkins University people, at least not between real people. An editor objected to me removing him from the list. — Jeraphine Gryphon  15:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. That's really really bad OR or synthesis to put a fictional character on that list. One consideration is to consider if there are notable uses of John Hopkins in fiction in general (one being that Dr. House is stated to be there), and have that as a subsection of the main university article, or "John Hopkins University in fiction" or something like that. But definitely not the mix-match you suggest. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Masem. That's ridiculously non-encyclopedic. See Hustling and it's subtopics for how to do this properly. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 02:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

How to state the notability selection criterion?

The section on selection criteria says that "Most of the best lists on Misplaced Pages" require that "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Misplaced Pages." However, I have yet to find such a list that explicitly states such a requirement, and I don't see how it can be done without violating WP:ASR. Can someone provide a solution and an example list? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The point that that statement makes is that editors when editing the page can set that requirement and describe it on the talk page, but it is not going to be explicitly statement on the main page. Take List of people from New York. Everyone is a blue link there,and the article starts with "This list... includes:", thus asserting that the list is not attempting to cataloging everyone from the state. We don't have to assert that the list is limited to only those with blue-links to the reader, just as long as we are clear this is not a complete list. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't even have to be a blue link. Red links to pages that need to be created, but which you're confident meet the notability criteria, would also be acceptable under that approach, since it's about "qualifying for", not "already having" an article. However, most of the "List of people..." actually require blue links. I believe that similar restrictions are typical for many software and website-related lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Obvious solution: If not requiring bluelinks, use the same criteria used at MOS:DAB#Red links for adding redlinks to disambiguation pages. It would probably be helpful for MOS:SAL to explicitly say this, or incorporate a variant of those criteria in its own wording. I have to agree with RockMagnetists's apparent implication that redlinks all over the place in SALs is a real problem. I'd call it a rampant one. Having MOS:SAL address the issue explicitly would probably be helpful, and wouldn't be an ASR issue, and would likely reduce talk page flaming about how whether or not there "really" is consensus at this or that SAL article to impose a bluelinks-only rule, etc., etc. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See, for example, the section Notability on the List of people from South Carolina talk page. A warning comment can also be added to the main list page that is only visible when an editor goes to edit it. See List of people from South Carolina just below the TOC, in edit mode. --Bejnar (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

For those disinclined to go look, what's said at that talk page could be revised to be generalizable principles, into something like the following:

Only list entries that qualify as notable under Misplaced Pages criteria. In general, either the would-be entry is notable if one or more of the following is true:

1. It is already the subject of its own Misplaced Pages article (link to it from its name as an entry in the list; if its connection to the topic of the list is not mentioned in its own article, include a reliable source citation that shows why the entry is relevantly classified on the list)
2. It is prominently named in an extant article, e.g. as a constituent part or subsection of that more general topic (use a piped link to that article and section from its name in the list; again, include a reliable source citation that demonstrates relevance if the entry's connection to the list topic is unclear in the other article)
3. You are drafting a Misplaced Pages article on the entry for mainspace publication within the next week, with multiple, independent reliable sources (cite at least one such source in the list entry to demonstrate notability relevance; mentioning your draft and linking to it in your userspace in the edit summary is recommended)
4. It is red-linked from multiple mainspace articles and so will likely have an article before long (include a reliable source citation to demonstrate notability and relevance).

These are pretty good talking points, in conjunction with MOS:DAB#Red links, to develop something proposal-worthy for adding to the guideline. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 

This seems like a decent summary of when to make an entry red-linked, but I'm concerned that emphasizing this will have the unfortunate side effect of making editors believe that only items eligible for a link may be included in lists. Some lists are supposed to have non-notable entries (which shouldn't be redlinked, of course). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That is why this type of notice belongs on appropriate talk pages, and made specific to the list in question. See example given above. Remember the original question was not about changing the guidelines, but about how such restrictions could be stated "without violating WP:ASR". Anything else you might read into SMcCandlish's comment is dicta. --Bejnar (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Three different list purposes

Having no guidance on this is clearly problematic, as reader-editors cannot be expected to remember which list uses which criteria or where they've bothered to "advertise" the criteria if they ever have, which is "not usually". We need to be able to distinguish between three purposes of lists and the kinds of lists they result in, then offer some baseline guidance about them where applicable. It's important to note that these three list-purpose varieties occur as stand-alone and embedded lists, and all the specialized list formats mentioned under "Types of list articles" at MOS:LIST, like outlines, glossaries, etc., will also fall within one of these three, so maybe this discussion should be at WT:MOSLIST instead, or eventually.

1. Enumeration – complete or intended to be complete , e.g. List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz, List of Ford vehicles, List of Harry Potter characters, all TV series episode lists, List of awards and nominations received by Danny Elfman. Such lists can frequently be compiled from a small number of reliable sources (sometimes even one) and thus entries may not need individual source citations for their inclusion in the list, but still require citations for facts alleged about them that come from other sources. There are no inclusion criteria for these lists other than membership in the set covered by the topic; i.e. consensus for inclusion is essentially automatic. That's mostly all WP:V/WP:RS and WP:NOR matters, but not adding a zillion redundant citations is clearly a MOS:SAL issue (if one or a few cites sources clearly reliably source all entries that don't have individual citations, WP:V is satisfied, and MOS:LIST/MOS:SAL can legitimately say not to "visually spam" the readers with pointless superscripted numbers.
2. Browsing – can never be complete and exist only to facilitate navigation, browsing, and discovery of correlation, e.g. List of people from North Carolina, List of snooker players, List of artists with a title track. Such lists should only include entries that fulfill the general notability guideline and either have an article, or fit the other criteria outlined above based on the WP:DAB inclusion rules for "okay" redlinking. Whether each entry's membership in the set must be demonstrated with a reliable source even if not challenged is an open question. Each entry must cite reliable sources for any facts alleged about that entry, even if they are already sourced in the main article on that entry. The inclusion criteria are simply an intersection of notability and membership in the set; i.e. consensus for inclusion is essentially automatic (and for those with extant articles usually corresponds to their presence in a category that matches the list, or such list may be created by listification of a category). MOS:LIST/MOS:SAL have little to say here.
3. Exemplification – intended to encyclopedically annotate noteworthy examples of the topic, e.g. List of books related to Buddhism, the lists in Albinism in popular culture, List of songs about alcoholism, the lists in "year in topic" composite list articles like 2006 in film. Such lists need individual entries to be sourced as to both their membership in the set covered by the topic and any facts alleged about them. Exemplification lists are most easily distinguishable from browsing lists by lack of a category for the members of the set. Such lists are not intended to be complete and usually never can be. Consensus for inclusion on the list is not automatic, and can be contentious. What general criteria or types of criteria there should be is an open question, and some non-general criteria are very context-specific. Providing advice that helps reduce confusion and strife should be one of MOS:LIST/MOS:SAL's goals here, without wandering into content-guideline territory. What kind of "notice" should there be of inclusion criteria, and where?

— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

PS: If WP:SAL were to (see top of this talk page) be cleaned up so that it contained only content advice, and all the style advice were moved to MOS:LIST with this page moving back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag, it might well have quite a bit more to say about all three of the above sorts of list. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Each entry must cite reliable sources for any facts alleged about that entry is wrong. Sources must be cited if and only if that information would have to be cited if it were present on a non-list page. We don't really have special rules for citing lists: if you need to cite it in a prose article (e.g., "John Doe was convicted of murder"), then you need to cite it in a list article. If you don't need to cite it in a prose article (e.g., "An apple is a kind of fruit"), then you don't need to cite it in a list article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Every statement must be sourced, however, even if it does not include an in-line citation. The very paragraph you cite continues with "Material not supplied by an inline citation may be supported with WP:General references or sources named as inline citations for other material." There's nothing at all about it being acceptable to omit sources entirely. You are right that there are no specific policies for lists, meaning that every single list item has to be sourced in some fashion, and, since blue-linking is the equivalent of using Misplaced Pages as a source, it isn't permissible to simply point at a blue link as a source.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Every statement must be verifiABLE, not verifiED. That is, it must be possible to source the statement, but it is not necessary to actually source it unless and until it falls into one of those four categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to assume that you didn't actually read the guideline. There is no guideline which says it is acceptable to include unsourced material in articles (although there are some that say that deleting articles simply for lack of sourcing isn't kosher). The section you are quoting deals only with inline citations (note that it is titled When you must use inline citations), and says nothing about only those four classes of items needing to be sourced. There's many ways to include sources in articles that are not inline citations. Don't expand the meaning of a statement beyond its context.—Kww(talk) 01:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Three points:

• Certainly I have read the section being quoted. In fact, I originally wrote it.
• MINREF is part of an essay, not a guideline.
• What matters is the policies that MINREF names as creating the requirements, not MINREF itself. MINREF only exists to summarize the policies, not to create requirements. Relevantly, WP:V begins "It must be possible to attribute all information in Misplaced Pages to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." WP:BLP and WP:V require inline citations for four types of material. If the material in question doesn't fall into one of those four categories (e.g., "An apple is a type of fruit"), then none of our sourcing policies require any type of citation for it.
  You don't have to like this state of things: a sizable minority of editors would like to require that all information be provided with a citation immediately upon being added. But the fact remains that no such citations are currently required by any policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) WhatamIdoing, we're talking past each other. In an exemplification list, every fact would be the kind of fact that would have to be sourced elsewhere. I'm not making up a rule, but clarifying the applicability of existing rules to a specific type of list. If you don't like the wording, let's work on that to get the point across better. PS: At Apple, why would you not need to cite that an apple is a fruit? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Because the fact that an apple is a fruit rather than an animal, vegetable, or mineral is not a direct quotation, not WP:CHALLENGED, not WP:LIKELY to be challenged, and not about a WP:BLP. Those are the only four circumstances in which you need to cite the material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are the circumstances in which an inline citation is required. That's not entirely the same thing as the requirement that facts be sourced. I'm arguing forcefully for the idea, elsewhere on this page, that a general citation for the bulk of some lists' content is sufficient, because so many of them have one or a handful of comprehensive sources, and obviates the need for an a per-entry inline citation (the material is verifiable with the citation already provided). But when it comes to lists made up of very disparate facts with no monolithic general single-source citation for the entries, there's little choice but to do inline citations. Another way of looking at it is that an entry missing a citation isn't going to get the page AfD'd, but it is likely to get the entry deleted-or-sourced on demand (i.e. upon being challenged), and will prevent GA/FL status (because reviewers will, in essence, issue a challenge for everything that isn't sourced). Similarly, the article on apples has a reliable source cited for it being a fruit (more accurately, it has reliable sources as to its taxonomy, which places it in a fruit tree order). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those are the (only) circumstances in which an inline citation is required.

If a policy requires a citation of any kind, it always requires an inline citation.

Therefore, no policy (currently) requires any citations (inline or general) unless the material fits one of those four categories.

NB that I'm not saying this is a good thing, because I don't actually have an opinion one way or the other on that point. I'm only telling you that this is what the current policies actually say: we require inline citations in the articles for four things, and for all other "non-four" material, we do not require that anyone ever type a citation into the page to support it. For "non-four" material, we require only that some published reliable source, somewhere in the world, in some language, has published this information. In fact, we don't even require that any editor know that the source even exists. If you add something that you believe is purely unverifiable trivia (say, the number of trees planted in front of your Kindergarten classroom door), but it later turns out that a source had been published to support that statement, then your addition (unintentionally) complies with our sourcing policies.

Also, with respect to FL issues, it doesn't much matter: What's generally considered best practice or at least the least-hassle-later practice (which is to cite anything and everything while you have the source in hand) is not what's required by our sourcing policies. We should acknowledge the difference between usually valuable and actually required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you're over-analyzing, and at this point, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with regard to the larger discussion. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is very simple, and was made in the first sentence of my reply on 02 March: Your statement that "Each entry must cite reliable sources for any facts alleged about that entry" is wrong. It might be good/desirable/helpful/the choice of all loyal citizens to cite sources for any and all facts about the entry, but there is no "must" about it. It is not actually required (unless it's one of the four). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How about if that sentence read, Each entry must have citable reliable sources for any facts alleged about that entry. That combined with: Any entry, or fact in an entry, that does not have a citation to a reliable source is subject to deletion. Put those two together and you get quite close. --Bejnar (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of the best lists...

I support removing the sentence "Most of the best lists on Misplaced Pages...". I've just seen it used to suggest changing a list from the second selection criteria (non-notable items) to the first one (only notable items). The wording seems to imply that the first criterion is preferred over the others, but that doesn't make sense in a situation where that change would cause the list to be empty. Diego (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You've misread this MOS in the AfD you're currently involved in. The second criterion requires to all entries to fail WP:N, not just the ones you want to include in the list to add spice and character. If you want to have a list of all female video game characters (the topic of the AfD) irrespective of notability you'd have to argue for CSC#3, but that's clearly not a workable solution since there's no way such a list could be considered "short" or "complete". -Thibbs (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A list of mixed notable-non notable can still be supported by the general list selection criteria; this is how all lists of fictional characters, and most navigational lists are justified. My concern is with the "Most of the best lists...", an extraordinary claim that was included by one editor as part of a larger inclusion and was not directly discussed, which IMHO makes it at best not a strong consensus and at worst misleading about the real proportion of different types of lists. You may be interested in the recent discussion about navigational lists that is ongoing here. Diego (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL is an article content policy, not a Misplaced Pages-wide policy. There is no need to prove the rather extraordinary claim that "notability is not temporary," for instance. But regardless, the proof is linked from the words "best lists on Misplaced Pages". The featured articles are nearly all replete with reliable sources covering each individual list member significantly. The only difference between raw verifiability and notability is the degree of coverage. To be notable a subject must enjoy significant coverage in the sources used to satisfy WP:V. Featured lists have a high standard of quality that must be met, and meeting these standards typically requires the inclusion of numerous high-quality sources that actually cover the list members significantly. In other words it requires that Common List Selection Criterion #1 be adopted. There are exceptions of course (FLA-lists covering only non-notable items, etc.), but these exceptions tend to reduce the reliance on RSes and minimize the number of sources needed to meet WP:V. Look at the examples listed next to list selection criterion #2 (List of minor characters in Dilbert and List of paracetamol brand names). In practical terms, both of these things (reduced importance of RSes and reduced numbers of RSes) work against the upgrading of the list to FLA status. -Thibbs (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend keeping the "Most of the best lists on Misplaced Pages..." line. It's a bit of a tautological expression, it's true, but I think it helps focus discussions regarding inclusion criteria in lists of fictional things which are currently in a bad state of disrepair on Misplaced Pages. The fact of the matter is that notability is defined by coverage in the reliable sources. And the use of reliable sources allow lists to meet WP:V which is a pre-requisite for their becoming "featured lists". It's a circular claim that all of the best (i.e. featured) lists use notability as the inclusion criterion, but it's a true one as far as I can see. -Thibbs (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against the claim of the "best lists on Misplaced Pages", but about the "Most", because it's untrue. See for instance featured lists accolades received by Sense and Sensibility, World Heritage Sites in Spain or Meerkat Manor meerkats, which are all examples of WP:CSC#3; and I didn't have to try hard to find them.

There isn't an article for each element in those lists; the biodiversity and culture of Ibiza and Dinosaur Ichnite Sites of the Iberian Peninsula, or the fact that Emma Thompson won Best Screenplay at the LAFCA may not necessarily be independently notable, but we have featured lists on them. A claim that most of these lists are about Misplaced Pages-notable items should be supported by statistical analysis (I know WP:EXCEPTIONAL is about content, I linked it to explain the standard I hold for an assertion like that in a Misplaced Pages policy, not to imply that it applies here; sorry for the WP:ARGH! moment).

I would prefer the link to featured lists to talk about verifiability of their items, instead of their notability, because it's possibly to have very good lists with any of the three criteria. (Ok, #2 is the most difficult, but I'm sure it's still doable). It would also be good to add a note reminding that these three are not exhaustive and that there can be other reasons to have lists. Diego (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well the term "common selection criteria" implies that there are uncommon criteria as well, but I don't think it's a good idea to suggest that Misplaced Pages encourages the development of novel selection criteria on an article-by-article basis and I also think it's not a good idea to suggest that it's common to achieve FLA status without rigorous sourcing. The notability standard is harder to meet than bare verifiability and so lists that are capable of meeting it are statistically more likely to be of higher quality. As I said earlier, the statement that "most of the best lists on Misplaced Pages reflect this type of editorial judgment" is kind of a tautological truism, but I think it's helpful in guiding editorial practice. There is plenty of wiggle room in my opinion for editors who decide to adopt a different CSC or even an uncommon SC should the particular list require it. But to remove or ignore the suggestion that more rigorous sourcing leads to better lists leads (in my experience) to the abandonment of high quality sources, the weakening of the article's adherence to WP:RS, and even to nonsense arguments that sources are not required for lists. Merely being verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. -Thibbs (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want a statistical analysis, then why don't you go do one? Or if that's too much work, then just stop by WT:FL and ask for opinions? I'm confident that either approach will prove that the sentence is true. Many categories of Featured Lists are things that are obviously notable, including practically every entry in (just to start at the top) Listed buildings, National treasures of Japan, World Heritage sites, Academy Awards, Filmographies, Grammys, Charts, Roads, Railways, National Football League, College football, Association football... WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Could we then change the word Most to Many in the guideline until after such analysis is done? Diego (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Conversely, the third criterion is used for most of the lists in categories Cast members and Episodes, and many lists in awards, band members, songs and concerts, weather and author timelines, company acquisitions, and some roads. These categories include a mixture of notable and non-notable items for completeness, and the notability of each item is not important. The sentence implies that only the first criterion should be used and recommended, which is highly misleading. Diego (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The first criterion is more demanding in terms of sources. Higher quality and greater numbers of sources lead to higher quality list articles. There are of course featured lists that use "lack of notability" (CSC#2) or "short completeness" (CSC#3) as their inclusion criteria, but as far as I can see these FLAs appear to be in the minority compared to those that use "notability" (CSC#1) as their criterion. I don't think it is misleading to suggest that greater sourcing requirements generally lead to better list articles in the majority of cases. And I don't think the suggestion that "higher sourcing standards is common for FLAs" implies that low-sourcing-requirement inclusion criteria (common or otherwise) are barred. As I said earlier, I think there is plenty of wiggle room for articles that require a lesser standard even if it means that they may never reach FLA status. I do think there are distinct dangers if we mislead editors regarding the desirability of sourcing by casting all selection criteria as equally likely to lead to FLA status, though.
Discussion over the CSC really only comes up in the context of cleanup efforts for unmanageably large lists that need trimming. You don't see much or any call to switch to CSC #1 for "short, complete lists" for instance. In practice this tends to come up when dealing with lists like "list of fictional cats" or "list of fictional lands in childrens books" or "list of fictional military personnel" etc. The typical scenario is that the person seeking to improve the massive list article's quality finds no inclusion criteria listed in the article and argues that CSC #1 should be adopted so that only notable fictional cats or only notable military personnel etc. should appear in the list. Then those who favor the low-quality, usually unsourced status quo argue in favor of CSC #3 and/or suggest that this is a special case because an especially large number of readers are probably interested in a catalog of all fictional cats/etc than they would be in only the notable ones. If there's nothing at CSC to distinguish which kind of editorial judgment generally leads to better results, then it's a toss-up between the one editor who wants to improve the article and the several who prefer the low quality version because it happens to include their favorite example of fictional trivia. This has been my experience at several dire articles I've attempted to improve in the past. -Thibbs (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Categories vs. lists

Let's talk about the substantive problems with changes. I'll start: Whether categories or lists are better in any given situation is hot button for some editors, and I consequently don't believe that addressing that issue in the lead constitutes an improvement to this page.

Would someone else like to address another change and whether it might be an improvement or not? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; I think it's likely to engender more heat than light. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 08:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the status quo is to your liking. I for one much prefer lots of heat with a bit of light over darkness. Not upsetting anyone has never been my priority. Anyway, moving this bit up into the lead, isn't something I'm married to. Goodraise 22:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly not your priority, and it's rarely mine either. >;-) I think both I and WhatamIdoing are trying to get across is that this is the page about stand-alone lists, not about the debate over whether lists are better than categories. It's just not all that topical to go into that debate in the lead of this page. Here's the proposed text, so this discussion doesn't exist in a vacuum:

This is based in part on:

I've never seen anyone suggest that the first sentence of the proposed wording is true before: "Part of the purpose of many stand-alone lists is to organize Misplaced Pages's content." I would argue with them if they did. Browsing lists as I defined them above are certainly a form of navigation, but that's not quite the same thing. The rest of the proposed lead wording is essentially the same as what was in the cat/list/template section. I'm trying to think of a comparable example, some other guideline with a lead that boils down to "This is the guideline about how to do X. But you might not want to do it." It seems more normal simply to document the topic, in another page document an alternative, and make sure each references the other at an appropriate point. Also, it's important that the original section wasn't about a binary choice between lists and categories, but three-way one, with navboxes as a option. If we were to put this stuff in the lead, it would make sense to have something like this in the lead of all three pages, or it will be essentially singling lists out for denigration. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe instead of "more appropriate" it should read "another appropriate" to show indifference in the guideline for one or the other, and to allow for the fact that both may be appropriate, as in Notable people lists & categories. Dkriegls (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"A very useful Misplaced Pages feature is ..."

I recently removed the text "A very useful Misplaced Pages feature is to use the 'Related changes' link when on a list page. This will show you all the changes made to the links contained in the list. If the page has a link to itself, this feature will also show you the changes made to the list itself." As edit summary I provided: "This is a style guideline. Editing advice like this should be given in editing guidelines. WP:AOAL sort of does so already." Seeing as the change has been reverted, I look forward to hearing arguments in favor of keeping this passage. Goodraise 21:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems like nit-picking and trying to follow the letter rather than the spirit of the guidelines. There is no point in taking something concise, topical and helpful here and burying it AOAL, which virtually no one ever reads, just because of a scope technicality. That said, this is one of the less controversial of your changes. But that said, I' still don't see what your justification for deletion is. It's not distracting. It's not bad advice. It's not conflicting with advice anywhere else. It's not off-topic (i.e., it's still about SALs, not about images or navboxes), and it's unlikely anyone will every say "WTF? Why is this here dammit!?!" I can't see any net gain, only a net loss, in utility coming from it removal. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 08:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, see top thread on this page. This page really needs to actually be a content guideline, and much of it is one. It's actually pointless for it to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form, citing MOS:LIST, which is where all of WP:SAL's style advice should go, and this page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, nobody's all knowing. I've seen this page moved around quite a bit, but payed little attention to it. (For the most part, I try to avoid editing anything with a guideline tag.) I simply assumed (especially in light of this so far not reverted edit) that the community had made up its mind and decided that this should be a style guideline (perhaps not an unreasonable assumption, considering the page name and tag on the top). Many of my recent edits were made under that assumption. Had the tag said "content guideline" I still would have changed things, just in a different direction. For what it's worth, I agree that this should be content guideline. Anyway, regarding the removed text that's subject of this section, I think we're in agreement on two points: a) it's worthwhile advice and b) it's editing advice, rather than content advice or style advice. On one point, however, I do have to disagree with you. I think it is off-topic and it is distracting, not much in itself, but it contributes. The longer we make our guidelines and the more we let them stray from their central topic, the fewer editors will take the time to read them. (Reading this probably bores you as much as me writing it, because it feels like I've had this argument thousands of times.) Perhaps the best way froward would be to split off editing related sections ("Chronological ordering", "Citing sources", "Lists and the 'Related changes' link") of this guideline and creating a new one, called Misplaced Pages:Editing stand-alone lists or something. Goodraise 22:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand you. I have a strong feeling this will sort itself out when we clean up this page's style/content confusion. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Peer-review for "List of people from.."

I'm trying to create some consensus on what a "List of people from..." page should look like. The List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois has had the most editor input and is the only such list of a US city which is fully cited. It was previously nominated for featured list, but the conclusion was to bring it to Misplaced Pages:Peer review instead.

The current peer review can be found here, and all are encouraged to say their piece, as a successful featured list is likely to be used as a standard reference for such lists. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

should not... vs. are not normally

I changed the line

• "Words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. should not be included in the title of a list article"

to

• "Words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. are not normally included in the title of a list article (an exception is made when omission would cause ambiguity).

This change was reverted by UnitedStatesian, who thinks my edit needs further discussion. OK, let's discuss.

I completely agree that such words are usually not included... because they are not necessary. For example, It should be obvious that our article "List of Freemasons" is not going to list every Freemason that ever walked the earth. Of course the list is limited to only the notable ones. I would completely agree that there is no need to clarify by adding the word "notable" in that article.

However, I don't think it is accurate to say that such words "should not be included" (which can be misunderstood to mean "should never be included"). In fact, there are situations where a qualifying word like "notable" or "famous" actually should be included. As an example: List of dogs came up for discussion recently at WT:AT... and it was agreed that this unadorned title was abiguous... From the title, we don't know if the list is a list of famous dogs (Lassie, Rin Tin Tin, Rex the Wonder dog) or a list of dog breeds (Collie, Poodle, Pit Bull) ... or a list of dog types (Hunting dog, Lap dog, Working dog). The unadorned title is ambiguous. Now, it happens that the list is about the first of these possibilities... it is a list of famous dogs. The addition of the word "famous" clears up that ambiguity. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

See searches for intitle:notable (most results) and intitle:famous (very few actual results, but eg List of haplogroups of historical and famous figures) and intitle:noted (1 result) and intitle:prominent (some non-mountain results). I agree that we don't forbid these words in article-titles, and the clarification blueboar made to this MoS page is true and useful. (However, some of the articles in those searches will/should be renamed, over the course of time.) —Quiddity (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Could we perhaps compromise on "should not normally be included"? I think that we want to discourage this, and it wouldn't solve the List of dogs problem. "List of notable dogs" doesn't signal the contents nearly as well as List of individual dogs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the very, very few exceptions to the rule as it reads are more a symptom of the occasional ignore all rules that of any needed change to this rule. Agree 100% that List of individual dogs is far, far preferable a solution to this non-problem. In sum: I would keep the rule as it is. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The most important thing is that an article's title clearly state its nature and scope and distinguish it from all others. This guideline has been a serious problem by blocking article title clarification, leading to articles like List of famous trees and many others to be changed to simply "List of trees", just to give one example of many. It is good to discourage adding words like "famous", when, as with List of diamonds, it goes without saying given the context of an encyclopedia. However, as with List of gemstones, it's needed to clarify that it's a list of particular famous gemstones, and not a list like "Ruby, diamond, emerald, ..." Such adjectives should be used when they are needed to clarify the nature and scope of each list and to distinguish it from other lists. List of notable asteroids would not be clearly titled without the word "notable" and it is necessary to distinguish it from List of minor planets, which aims to be a list of all astroids known to man. This guideline should simply state that such adjectives should be used when they are necessary, and not when they are not necessary to clarify the nature and scope of the list and to distinguish it from all others. I might have worded it differently but that wording does the job and should be kept. If we keep it the way it is, users such as UnitedStatesian will not be stopped from disallowing such words on "ignore all rules" grounds, as he was not when he changed "list of famous dogs" back to "list of dogs", citing this guideline. We need this guideline to clarify and distinguish quite a few article titles, such as List of birds and many more. In each case, the standard should be whether the title clarifies the nature and scope of each list and helps to distinguish it from others better with or without the adjective. That is all. Chrisrus (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The key issue here is the potential for ambiguity... and we are inconsistent in how we deal with it... (note: both ambiguity and consistency are core concepts when it comes to entitling articles).

Let's examine two unadorned titles: List of birds and List of cats. I find both of these titles ambiguous. Looking at just the title, I don't know what these lists are listing (ie I can't figure out the topic of the article from looking at the title). The first is a list various orders and families of birds. The second is a list of famous cats. Both titles can refer to more than one topic... List of birds could refer to famous birds (which is at List of historical and fictional birds) while List of cats could refer to cat breeds (which is at List of cat breeds). I would resolve the ambiguity by renaming both of the unadorned titles List of birds to List of bird orders and families and List of cats to List of famous cats. This would resolve the ambiguity and introduce some consistency.

In short, if we are going to have a "rule" explicitly disallowing (or strongly discouraging) words like "famous" or "notable" ... we need to note that there are exceptions to that "rule" ... by explicitly allowing (and mildly encouraging) words like "famous" or "notable" in cases where omitting such a word would result in ambiguity and confusion. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I Agree with Blueboar on the above. And I don't think List of individual dogs would be a good solution to the problem of ambiguity, particularly as it relates to List of trees (which includes some notable forests). —Quiddity (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeezum!... If the wikilawyers are using this guideline to prevent us from moving that to: List of notable trees and forests (a much more informative and sensible title) then something is seriously wrong and we really need to rethink. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly that happened 10 days ago, and 5 years ago. —Quiddity (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Trying to ignore being called a wikilawyer, which seems not to assume good faith on my part, I would be happy with this change provided this: Could someone, anyone, tell me what "famous," and especially what "notable," actually mean? It is why I believe adding one of those words actually makes the title less, not more informative. Isn't the List of individual dogs title a better alternative, since everyone knows what the word "individual" means? UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"List of individual dogs" is clearer than "list of dogs" because you can tell it's not a list of dog breeds or types, but just individual dogs. It doesn't get across the fact that, in order to be included on the list, the dog has to be famous. For example, we revert contributions of dogs of dogs in someone's self-published e-books about his or her personal dog. Chrisrus (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

But isn't that second part also true of List of Princeton University people, List of United States companies, List of social networking websites, and basically every stand-alone list in Misplaced Pages? And famous according to whom? I would think we would need a reliable source stating that the dog is famous, correct? (note that both "notable" and "famous" are listed at WP:PEACOCK) UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that the title of any page needs to be a complete statement of its scope. In particular, for stand-alone lists, a complete statement of the list selection criteria is explicitly supposed to be in the lead. Otherwise, we'd need to have very long titles like ] (to deal with bluelink-only lists). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Whatareyoudoing, the function of an article title is to summarize what the article is about and to distinguish it from all others. If you don't agree with that, please do be WP:BOLD and edit WP:ARTICLETITLE so that it doesn't say exactly that upfront. Chrisrus (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm Ms WhatamIdoing, but you're not thinking this through. We have List of people from New York, not List of people verifiably born in or strongly associated with the State of New York and for which the English Misplaced Pages already has an article. We don't actually want a complete statement of the scope, because it would sound stupid. "List of dogs" does summarize the subject. It also distinguishes it from other subjects, like the List of cats and the List of fruits. It's ambiguous, which is undesirable, but vagueness is okay. We now have List of individual dogs, which is a significant improvement. A full statement of the scope, though, would produce a stupid title like List of individual dogs, but probably not including yours, no matter how much you love little snoogums, unless you can prove that two newspaper articles written by people unrelated to you have been published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, List of Princeton University people and List of diamonds don't need such adjectives in their titles for the user to know what the list is about or to distinguish them from others. We know just from the title that they are lists of notable ones without the adjectives. Other titles, however, such as "List of trees" and "List of gemstones" the user doesn't know that they are not lists like "baobab, maple, larch, ...." or "diamond, emerald, ruby, ...". "List of asteroids" without an adjective isn't even clear if it is a list of all asteroids known to man, as List of minor planets aims to be, or a list of notable asteroids. List of dogs is a list of famous dogs, like Uggie and Hachiko, but not necessarily a list of WP:NOTABLE ones. That's what it is. We routinely edit out individuals that cannot prove fame and use its talk page to discuss whether each dog meets the standard of famousness or not. When we add, for example, the yellow dog of Lao Pan, we assert that we have checked and he is indeed famous. We do not also implicitly claim that he deserves a stand-alone article, as all WP:NOTABLE things do. So please go back and undo your move of the article from List of famous dogs to List of dogs because insodoing you unintentionally harmed the project. Chrisrus (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Again... the issue isn't the scope of the list... the issue is the ambiguity of the TITLE. Because there are multiple articles that could take the title "John Doe" we need to disambiguate ("John E. Doe", "John R. Doe", "John Doe (Axe-murderer)", "John Doe (Physicist)" etc.) The unadorned title "John Doe" is usually made into a dab page. What I am talking about are situations where similar ambiguity exists with the TITLES of lists... there are multiple lists that could take the title "List of dogs"... so we need to disambiguate... "List of dog breeds", "List of dog types", "List of notable dogs", etc. Since there a multiple lists that could take the title "List of Birds" we need to disambiguate... List of bird orders and families, List of historical and fictional birds" etc. The unadorned List of dogs and List of birds should (in my opinion) be navigational dab pages pointing to these articles. (Well... actually... since the resulting dab pages would be a "list of lists", I would suggest calling the dab pages Index of lists of dogs and Index of lists of birds... and have the completely unadorned titles as redirects to those indexes... but that is a secondary issue) Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You are right, distinguishing is one issue, but describing is an issue also. The title should say what the article is and it should distinguish it from others. Both are important, not just one. Chrisrus (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me like consensus is emerging... but we are getting bogged down with nit-picking around the edges. Shall we explore suggestions on language to see if we can move past the nit-picks? I'll start with:

• Words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. should not be included in the title of a list article - except when omission would result in ambiguity.

(followed by some examples, to show what we mean) Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Here, the point is what this guideline should say. It should say to use such adjectives when they clarify the nature and scope and to distinguish them from others, (List of famous gemstones), and not used when they they are not necessary (List of diamonds) because, given the context of an encyclopedia, the adjectives ("List of famous individual diamonds") go without saying. Chrisrus (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that List of famous gemstones could be accurately re-named to List of named gemstones with no loss of information and a valuable reduction in WP:PEACOCK terms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• My conclusion is that we do not need to change the guidance. There is more than one way to avoid ambiguity, as WhatamIdoing and others pointed out with List of individual dogs, which would equally apply to List of individual diamonds. You can have the "List of large asteroids" where the lead tells the reader (and potential editors) that large means greater than X. You have have "List of European Alps" where the lead indicates that a certain prominence (mountain) was needed for inclusion. If you can spell it out in the lead, you don't need those adjectives in the title. The fact remains that all of those adjectives are highly subjective, and that makes them less useful for discrimination, in the title, in the lead or elsewhere. --Bejnar (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Bejnar, how would you disambiguate titles like List of cats or List of birds? Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"Taxonomic list of bird families" would work; or if one wishes to have it start with list "List of taxonomic families: birds" and it could be one of many such entitled lists, like "List of taxonomic families: mammals". "List of individual cats" is about all it deserves. Is there a problem with that choice? One could take a different approach to the classification and match it with the existing List of fictional cats and other felines as "List of true cat tales", and "List of writer's cats". However, that would not cover the cats of celebrities section, but that second half would go with the existing List of United States Presidential pets, so "List of entertainer's pets" "List of scientist's pets" "List of accountant's pets". as needed. "List of writer's cats" could also be a subsection of "List of true cat tales", rather than a standalone. --Bejnar (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I should re-emphasize that while the title does the major grouping, the lead fills in the technical details. --Bejnar (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think that we should always keep in mind the various reasons for which a reader might be consulting a certain list. Questions like: How can we best aid them in their search? What classification, not provided in the category system, would be most helpful? should be at the top of our thinking when dealing with naming and classification. --Bejnar (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Dutch Hip hop Musicians

Hi. I think List_of_Dutch_hip_hop_musicians would be better as a category. Or do you think there are reasons it should stay a List Article? Thanks, 1292simon (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not present the information as both a category and a list? Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• There is never a reason to destroy one simply because you prefer another. Both are fine. A list allows more information, and is thus far more useful than a category anyway. Dream Focus 08:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

List article vs a regular article

How do we define when something is a list-article vs. a regular-article? From what I can tell, a list article is defined in the first sentence of the MOS:

articles the main components of which are one or more embedded lists

"Main components" is vague.. does it mean a mathematical count of words, screen real-estate.. or is it a conceptual idea where the primary purpose or focus of the article is about the list proper. For example, Charles Dickens bibliography would be considered a list-article since it is primarily an article designed to contain a list of works. However even though Robert Louis Stevenson contains lists, it is not a list-article because the primary purpose of the article is a bio of the author, the lists being ancillary to that. Is this a correct understanding of the MOS? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A "list article" is one where the primary purpose (or focus) of the article is to list things. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

List articles have moved on substantially since this original (and clearly unclear(!)) part of the MOS was written. Where a main article can't be substantiated, maintained or be moved beyond a stub, it makes sense to keep the topic self-contained as a list article with more prose than was traditionally accepted as expected in a standalone list which previously went along the lines of "This is a list of..." followed by a list.... We've progressed from there, particularly now we represent WIkipedia on the main page and want to do so professionally, not being held back by people pointing at specific sentences in particular guidelines in the MOS which aren't helpful, constraining the approach back to that followed in the mid 2000s. By the way, Robert Louis Stevenson's bibliography section is a good candidate for a standalone list, thanks for noting that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying the MOS has been out of date since the mid 2000s .. 8 years or so? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying the FLC process has improved and encouraged editors to consider our audience and create (if required) standalone lists which encompass most, if not all the pertinent issues that a pointless stub main article would cover. Yes, some of the MOS regarding lists needs close examination. What now? You point me at more rules or do we get a chance to create excellent articles, albeit under the name of "lists"? I really have to get back to improving WIkipedia, not holding it all for your interpretation of a few parts of a few sentences in a guideline. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's shocking that you're so involved with Featured List but apparently don't seem to care too much about the MOS. There is good reason not to enshrine articles as lists that are not lists. It cripples the article and makes it difficult for future editors to get on with expanding the prose section into a full fledged encyclopedia article. They are forced to do battle by submitting a Featured Review and wait weeks for consensus to develop while arguing arcane rules -- something only 0.01% of the Misplaced Pages community would ever do. If something is a stub now that is OK because we are not under a time limit, someone will come along later and fill it out. But you make this decision that it will always be a stub and so freeze it as such as a Featured List making it extremely difficult for others to work on it in the future. The Orange Prize is a good example of that. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Not shocking in the slightest. Trying to edit the MOS is like trying to reverse time. It's seems that it's something mere mortal editors can't achieve without a trip to the moon and back. So please, don't be "shocked", no need at all, I'd hate to think of your stress levels rising because of that. We never freeze a main article, try look at List of FLCL episodes which, just a few days back, was demoted and merged back into its main article. Please get your facts straight. Orange Prize is the worst example, you've infringed the rules of attribution and we have a copy-and-paste main article stub which is basically redundant because all the pertinent information is held in the winners list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a disregard and disdain for the consensus established by the MOS. Your approach is authoritarian and top down management, basically deciding ahead of time for future editors that the article will always be a stub and they will have to prove it otherwise by going through the pain of a FLRC before they can make any major changes to the article. It's an impediment to improving Misplaced Pages by adding unnecessary levels of bureaucracy on certain articles we already know will and can be expanded. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your impeding decent quality articles, all be them lists, by picking and choosing your application of sentences in the MOS. You created a "main article" of the Orange Prize, ironically by copying and pasting the majority of the existing featured list. Bravo. And now what? Nothing, that's what, it's gone nowhere at all, other than to create two articles describing (in almost identical terms) the same thing. You must be so proud. So now centralise this discussion please, RFC it, and stop forum shopping. We're getting nowhere since we clearly have different agendas, mine to focus on giving the reader a complete and comprehensive experience, yours to wikilawyer in order to create stubs and by default remove information from one place to arbitrarily place it somewhere else, hence creating two worse articles. Once again, bravo, expert, bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like this is a dispute that got heated before it even arrived here. Anyway, I had a discussion about this topic a while ago at Misplaced Pages talk:FLCR#Difference between a list and an article? Reading it might provide some insight. Basically, I don't think it is useful to make a bright line distinction between list articles and non-list articles. Why would we? I also have to agree absolutely with TRM on the state of list related guidelines. They're totally outdated. In practice we have moved on, but any attempt at trying to shape the guidelines up seems to end in frustration and banging one's head against the nearest wall. Goodraise 20:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, in that discussion you said "there is no such distinction between stand-alone lists and normal articles. In practice, we leave it to the reviewers at WP:FAC." That is exactly what is happening, there is an ongoing discussion in a FACFLC whether that article should be considered a list or not. The discussion is rules-based and specific to the characteristics of that article. The Rambling Man however doesn't believe that should be happening, he thinks we need to start a separate RFC etc.. - but I agree with you Goodraise, it's very simple we just decide the issue in the FACFLC, it's not complicated. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC) (edit: fixed FAC -> FLC typo after TRM's comment below - GC)

(a) this isn't a FAC discussion, Goodraise was simply noting that some FACs have lists (as you have done), the article under review right now is an FLC (b) the discussion shouldn't be "rules-based" at all, perhaps that's where it's all fallen down (per Goodraise's "bright line" note) (c) I have become so sick of your forum shopping that the RFC seemed the only way out because your position affects more than just a single FLC (not " we just decide the issue in the FAC , it's not complicated") it affects many and I'd hate to trudge through this same long grass every single time you choose to pop into every literary award FLC to object on the same grounds, and point out how we are abusing MOS. By the way, I'm done with this debate entirely. I'll leave it for you and others to work out what best serves our readers, a stub main article and crap list, or a featured and fully comprehensive list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The decision is decided during the FLC based on the merits of the individual article. You're trying to make this into a Platonic final decision for all articles and that will never happen because every article is different, any such RFC is doomed to fail from the start. You have to go through this process for each FLC and article because they are all different. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Entries from the beginning of time and/or anywhere in the world

I added a statement to the guideline list selection criteria, "Does the membership criteria address relevant Five Ws and one H, including should the list of X entries be from the beginning of time and/or anywhere in the world?" That came from my commenting at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Game of the Year, where you can see my effort to apply the Five Ws and one H to the selection criteria query. From that, I saw that the list selection criteria appeared to be missing a few probing questions whose answers are considered basic in information-gathering per Five Ws and one H. However, in the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Game of the Year list situation, the How and Why part of the Five Ws and one H were not needed. They actually might not be needed for a selection criteria in a different list either. I don't know the answer to that. To be safe, I posted the above statement to the guideline. Blueboar edited it, noting "I think I get what you are trying to say, but it is not clear. let's discuss on talk page." I agree that what I posted is in the ballpark, but the wording is not as clear as what it should be. What Blueboar kept might be good enough. In short, take a look at Five Ws and one H and see whether any other Five Ws and one H would provide a query that editors should ask themselves when trying to determine how to word a list selection criteria. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Notable list entries can be from different nations, and even different time periods. That's not relevant. List of Roman emperors covers over a thousand years. Dream Focus 13:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• True, but in other situations, it may help editors to figure out what should and should not be added to a list based on a list selection criteria specifying a particular geography or particular period. It does not require list to be limited to a geographic region or period in history. It is just one more question whose answer can be used in formulating the wording for a list selection criteria to help instruct editors as to what information should be gathered for the list. The listed query would not affect something like List of Roman emperors, whose membership criteria is anyone having the title of Roman Emperor from the beginning of time (well, beginning of the Roman Empire) and anywhere in the world (mostly Rome, but I think Caligula had planned to move to Egypt if my scholarly research via watching a TV show is correct.).-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Nonsense. No possible reason to have it, and potentially something someone would quote in an AFD thinking that justifies deleting something they don't like. Location and time period are never a valid reason to exclude something. If a list gets too long, you can divide it by time periods, or nationality, or whatnot. Dream Focus 14:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It really depends on what the topic of the specific list is... some are (and should be) more open ended in scope, others are (and should be) more limited in scope. The scope of a specific list is an issue that should be decided by common sense and consensus of editors, on a list by list basis. A "one size fits all" approach is not going to work... and it is not something we can codify it in the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-English wp article -- sufficient support for entry on English wp list of people?

Question. Sometimes lists of people lack any wp article on the English wp. And lack any RS refs.

The only "ref" given is to a non-English language wikipedia article. Is that sufficient, for the name to remain on the list on the English wikipedia? (I note, for example, that what is notable in a foreign language wp may not be notable in the English wp).

Or should the name be removed?

Or does it depend ... do we have to look at the foreign language wikipedia article, translate it, and evaluate the ref(s) in that article before deciding whether to delete the name in the English wp list of people?

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Notability isn't language dependent, so that isn't an issue. Sourcing something to a wiki isn't acceptable, though. It's one of those cases where I'd take a quick peek at the foreign wiki (maybe with Google translate) and, if it appeared to be a decent article, I'd tag the entry. If the foreign wiki article looked to be trash, I'd probably remove the entry.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing standard for lists is exactly the same as for non-list articles. Does this involve a contentious claim about a living person? If so, remove the entry immediately. If not, then pretend it's not a list, but a plain old sentence. So instead of this:

List of people who attended Oxford College

• Alice Expert

(or whatever the subject of your list is), you have this:

Alice Expert attended Oxford College.

Would you accept this claim in a relevant article without a source? If so, then accept it for the list. If not, then do not accept it for the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is the difference. To be on a wp list, the subject has to both: a) fit the list (e.g., in your example, for a list of people from Oxford, have attended Oxford; so for that, your explanation suffices) ..., but b) also be notable by our standards. If the subject has a wp article in the English wp, the subject is presumptively notable (or it can be demonstrated by independent refs). If the subject only has a wp article on a non-English wp, however--since the non-English wp has different standards as to notability, I am questioning whether that suffices to assert notability. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Elements of a list don't have to be notable, and the existence of a blue link is meaningless. It's the sources inside the Misplaced Pages article that demonstrate whether inclusion in the list is reasonable or not. Best practice would be to find the source from inside the article that demonstrates that it should be in the list, and carry that reference to the list article. That same approach works for foreign-language Wikis as well: if a reliable foreign-language source shows that the entry should be included, there's nothing at all wrong with sourcing the entry exclusively to the foreign-language source.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Kww... mostly right, but not completely... some list articles do require that all the elements be notable while others do not. So the question of whether the specific person Epeefleshe is talking about needs to be notable to be included in a list here on WP.en depends on the specific list he/she is talking about. However, you are absolutely correct in noting that a source that is cited in a non-english version of WP might very well be reliable for supporting the inclusion of the person in the list on this version of WP. WP.en does not require our sources to be in English. So I definitely would advise examining the sources at the other wp. Blueboar (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A few lists actually require bluelinks, because they'd otherwise be absolutely enormous. But while any given list could have a bluelinks-only rule or a notable-people-only rule, the English Misplaced Pages as a whole has no such requirement. Otherwise, lists like List of minor characters in Peanuts would be impossible. Notable-subjects-only is just one of the three main systems for list selection criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Lists of places?

The examples of good things to make lists about didn't include lists of places, only events and people, which I find odd: what about lists of canyons, waterfalls, universities, digs for Precambrian fossil sites--and things: Precambrian fossils? tropical woods? dyes?

Any comments? Monado (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The lists mentioned at the end of that section are giving specific guidance on how to make lists that "Some Wikipedians feel topics / unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic". I don't think we want to lest all possible topics for appropriate lists. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

References in Lists

It appears that a general interpretation of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)#Citing sources is that information from blue linked articles does not need a citation but red linked info does. The Featured List criteria requires it all to be referenced even those exempt by WP:MINREF. Can we make Citing sources clearer on this point (one way or the other) and then perhaps align the featured list criteria to agree, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you can make that interpretation. Which line(s) of the MOS suggest any blue linked articles don't need a citation? That would exempt all lists from any citations whatsoever which is nonsensical. Take List of Baileys Women's Prize for Fiction winners for instance. Everything in that article is blue-linked, so are you suggesting you could interpret the MOS to say it needs not one citation in the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly we are not on the same wavelength, the article which this problem started was List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft which just uses a summary from the article, the winners list in your example is actually new information put together which is not actually included as a whole in any of the related articles so could be challenged. MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Where does the MOS make this distinction please? (And I don't agree with your distinction anyway, each of the laureate's articles would contain the information summarised in the list...) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesnt which is why we cant agree and my original request above from some clarity. Side issue but the first entry in the example list for 1996 none of the other books short listed for the prize are mentioned in either the book or the authors articles so really new information that could be challenged rather than a summary. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Simply untrue. Julia Blackburn mentions "1996 Orange Prize, shortlist, The Book of Colour", Pagan Kennedy mentions "Spinsters (1995) (shortlisted for 1996 Orange Prize)", The Hundred Secret Senses mentions "It was shortlisted for the 1996 Orange Prize for Fiction.", Amy Tan mentions "Nominated for the Orange Prize", Marianne Wiggins mentions "Eveless Eden ... Shortlisted for 1996 Orange Prize." ..... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

None of those include others shortlisted for the prize or who won, so really new information and not a summary. MilborneOne (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not getting anywhere with this really. Are you seriously content that the aviation list in question is 100% dependent on subarticles for references? Even though it contains material that "can be challenged" (and has been)? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes as it is a summary of the article not new information. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so it should be called a summary, not a list. I've challenged the information in the list, which means I'm entitled to get citations. If you just want a summary article then call it a summary. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we stick to the point and not bring irrelevant battles here? What puzzles me in the literary prize example is that, although each individual entrant may be blue-linked, there is no reference to show that the list is complete, or even exists elsewhere in complete form. There are two "external links" which one hopes would supply the missing information, but they are not presented specifically as references. As I read the MOS, if there are no quotations, challenges or contentious material then yes, one may be able to get away without inline citations. In the literary example, one might agree that at least one of the external links can be used as a general Reference. OTOH the Featured List criteria do appear to demand on-the-spot citation. Is there one rule for humdrum lists and another for featured lists? Must indirectly referenced lists be demoted to "summaries"? Does a citation attack change the status of a list and demand endless copying across of inline cites from the linked articles, simply because it has taken place? I can well see why MilborneOne would like a reality check on this whole issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Picking just one item from your statement, what would you consider material that one could "challenge"? Could it be the number of deaths? Could it be the circumstances of a crash? Or are we simply going to sidestep the issue here and say "see the specific articles, hoping them to have the material referenced...." I'd be interested in your ideas. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I would expect that all the content in the entry (row) could be validated, at the very least by either going to any general references or by following through on the linked article. The list needs to be both readable and verifiable, but we should not sacrifice too much readability for the sake of easy referencing. For example obscure paper documents such as rare books can provide suitable references. Verifying these is a pain, especially if they are in a foreign language, but, like any academic verifying the references in a research paper, one has to either make the effort or take them on faith. I would suggest that following a verification chain from one article to another to... comes under the same banner. So yes, in this instance I'd like to see the burden on the challenger - otherwise we hit two issues: the endless cloning of citations and the mischievious sceptic citation-bombing the table (to be clear, this is not a sideswipe, I do not include you among the mischievious, and it is good to be a sceptic). But I am not an expert on policy, so maybe there are some out there that contradict me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Statements should be sourced where they appear (list or not). Stats and/or information can change in parent articles without sub articles being updated - thus sources should be in all locations so editors can see why there may be a discrepancy between articles - like one is simple updated with new info - but both have sources for the different claims - one old and one new. This is very relevant to music article on sales.Moxy (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite. The idea that we rely on sub-articles to reference material is absurd. In the case of the aviation project, this is usually okay because they do a good job of referencing their articles, but it can't be relied upon. As Moxy says, "statements should be sourced where they appear". And in fact, having looked through several list articles which use the aviation project approach, it's become increasingly obvious that a reader may not even know which article to click on to find these citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If that is the prevailing consensus so be it, but as I and I suspect plenty of others dont understand it I go back to my original request which is the wording needs to be clarified to make all of this clear as most lists on wikipedia are not referenced because a lot of editors have taken a different view of what are the same words, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

So I'll ask you again: "Which line(s) of the MOS suggest any blue linked articles don't need a citation?" It's down to your interpretation that this issue exists. Is there a mention of summary articles in MOS that precludes inline references for items which could be challenged (e.g. number of deaths, manner of crash etc)? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

add this - we need to be clear. No matter where a statement is as per WP:BURDEN QUOTE = "The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article'." List are articles - thus subject to all the same verifiability - this means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source - not have to guess where the sources are or spend lots of time on verifying info when all we need is a simply source where the info appears.Moxy (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This: "Stand-alone lists are subject to Misplaced Pages'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..." So if a blue link does not fall foul of the four kinds, then it does not (necessarily) need a citation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And your definition of a claim that may be challenged is....? Could it be "number of deaths in an accident"? Could it be "cause of accident"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I take it you don't mean "May be successfully challenged". Any claim /can/ obviously be challenged, but mischievious or "the sky isn't blue" challenges are worthless. So for example I would expect that both the claims you mention can be sensibly challenged. But whether the challenge stands up to scrutiny is another matter. Also, challenging a hundred factoids with a general tag is one thing, tag-bombing all hundred is another. When a claim is challenged, how solid or specific does that challenge have to be before it can not be summarily reviewed and dismissed as dealt with by another editor? Opinions will likely differ wildly. Does WP:BRD apply to challenges or should the challenge stand while it is discussed and consensus built? Do generic tags and specific bombs differ in this? What if consensus cannot be reached? This is the kind of thing I would like to see some more clarity on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question about the items I suggested which many may seem to be challenged. It's daft for us to rely on subarticles for references, and not good for our readers either. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We have had many discussions at WT:V over what constitutes a "legitimate" challenge and "obvious" information... and consensus always comes down to this: Yes, if someone challenges the unsourced "obvious" statement that "The sky is blue" (or "Paris is the capitol of France") you actually do have to give a citation. It may seem silly to do so, it may be annoying that someone made you do so... but push comes to shove, you do have to supply a citation if someone else asks for one. One final comment... it is far easier (and much less stressful) to just slap in a citation when requested than it is to argue about whether the citation is needed. When it comes to "obvious" information, I have found that if you simply supply the citation (without arguing), and then go back and ask the challenger whether the citation is really needed, they often back down and say "nah... you can take it out again if you want to." Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man. What part of "So for example I would expect that both the claims you mention can be sensibly challenged." does not answer your question?

@Blueboar: If this issue is discussed so often with the same consensus each time, has it not led to the adoption of a policy or guideline? I can only find WP:MINREF which I quoted above and a couple of opinion essays: WP:BLUE would appear to be an end-to-end contradiction of what you say, while in WP:NOTBLUE the only justification which might be relevant is your suggestion that it is easier to cite than to argue. But a table full of factoids needs dozens, maybe hundreds of citations to be fully referenced. Set this precedent for one table and all those endless other tables need the same treatment. A true editorial nightmare. Discussing till the cows come home so that we can update the guidelines is really not such a burden in comparison. (I can only thank you for your patience with me).

So, to take one of my questions which I think is key to the dispute which triggered this discussion and directly follows on from The Rambling Man's line of questioning, are challenges exempt from WP:BRD?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The established practice for such lists is that references are not required iff the article linked to corroborates the claim. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where you think this practice was "established". It certainly wasn't established in any of the numerous guideline/policy page discussions that have been held on the issue. There is a solid consensus that if information appears in both a regular article and a list, it should be cited in both places. It's why the guideline states: Stand-alone lists are subject to Misplaced Pages's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I confess I am unsure where all this solid consensus appears. That "where they appear" was only added on the 7th July, after this debate began - hardly a solid consensus (I think I had better revert it, moving the goalposts during a discussion does not seem ethical to me). Above I linked what precedent I could find, primarily other quotes from that same guideline - which if you read it in full appears to contradict that later edit and support the established practice claimed by Mjroots. Here is its second paragraph in full: "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." Please note that "it is generally expected." Can anybody provide sources to a solid consensus against that style guidance? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the list in question (List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft) relies entirely on the articles linked within to provide sources. Some of those simply don't. Although perhaps some of the sub-articles to those target articles may... where does it stop? Is there a good reason not to reference claims in the articles where the claims are made? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Using a blue-link as a reference is the same as using en.wikepedia.org as the source in an inline citation. We forbid the latter, and, by extension, we forbid the former. There's nothing so onerous about inline citations that we shouldn't mandate the existence of an inline citation to justify that the item meets the list's inclusion criteria. —Kww(talk) 17:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man. Where a linked claim is not backed up by the linked article, the MOS is currently clear that it needs referencing in the list. I am not aware that this is under dispute, so I do not think that it can as you suggest be "the point in question". Mjroots answered the "where does it stop?" issue, writing just above here; "references are not required iff the article linked to corroborates the claim." I would not argue with that, though I would appreciate a corroborating link (sic). The "good reason not to" issue is here confined to the stand-alone lists under discussion, and not more broadly to articles in general as your question is worded. I offered one answer above when I pointed out the impracticality of referencing every darned factoid on every darned list of everything on Misplaced Pages. We have started going round in circles here.

So just one level of linkage then, you're saying if the subarticle isn't referencing the claim in the superarticle, it needs to be fixed, right? So how do I tag one of these "list" articles if the subarticle it depends on for referencing doesn't reference the claim? Because that's what I'm trying to do. And why should we make our readers go through hoops to find a reference? And what happens if the subarticle reference goes dead or isn't valid? Seems like this is a convenience for editors and not for our audience. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Kww. Nobody is proposing to use blue links as references, merely that blue links do not need referencing as long as the linked article corroborates the claim. That is a very different thing. Also, you say that inline citations are not a burden. See my repeated point above to The Rambling Man that lists are more open to interminable and onerous referencing. If you disagree with my point, where would the brakes be applied? That is, at what point in a tabulated list containing perhaps many hundreds of factoids could we say, "this factoid does not need referencing"? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not referencing "factoids" we're referencing fact. We have thousands of featured lists where "challengeable" facts are referenced within the list and are in no way dependent on sub-articles (which may have no pedigree whatsoever). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Blue links do not need referencing as long as the linked article corroborates the claim" is using the blue link as a reference, Steelpillow.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of the clarification that was added - as concessus is clear and the fact it simple represents a long standing founding principle of verification. So lets us try to be very clear here as this is getting a bit tedious. Statement of facts need sources no matter where they are - as do list that put things and or people in to classification lists like Canadian American. If there is a list like Outline of Canada yes there is no need for a source as its simply a list of articles with no Statements of facts.Moxy (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your clarifications. For the most part you have shown great patience with this issue, and I am sure I am not the only one who appreciates that. I guess the FLC is a separate discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The one thing I'd add on the FLC side is that most of the arguments for not having to have inline cites in a list is typically based on have no DEADLINE - that things will get fixed in this. When you take a list to FLC (a point of quality control), any arguments about "no deadline" are thrown out the window - what the MOS requires needs to be done, otherwise you'll fail the FLC. So it's not so much FLC directly itself, just when the "no deadline" arguments for not doing something because null and void. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there does need to be clarity between what the MOS expects at the end of the day when one is considering the list for FLC, and what the list may be as it is developed per NODEADLINE. Clearly, end of the day, sourcing needs to be there, either as by-entry inline cites or overall catchall references, irregardless of the topic. But it is inappropriate, per WP:V, to remove a blue link that is not inline-cited where there is a reference on the linked page to support inclusion, since it is simply a matter of moving the reference across. That said, it is reasonable that the more contentious the topic of the list, the stronger need to demand the cite right then and there instead of waiting for FLC cleanup. While the additional Moxy re-added above is correct in light of consensus, one has to remember this is a MOS, describing the ideal style and one that one should be directed towards during editing but by no means a requirement for a sub-FLC list. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. This isn't about FLC, it's about how massive lists can have not one single reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We have to distinguish between what the MOS should be doing - telling editors how we eventually want articles to look (per DEADLINE) - and what our other policies specifically on sourcing require. The MOS should be silent on the issue of a list absent any references outside of the fact that that list doesn't meet the MOS guidelines. On the other hand, a list absent references is a WP:V problem, within the scope that WP:V requires that sources have been clearly identified. The MOS here can ask (and a reasonable request that I don't disagree with) that each entry in a list include an inline cite to justify inclusion, but it is unable to ask anything on the removal of unsourced entries. That is advice for elsewhere, for certain, just not one to put into the MOS. That might be where the confrontation is here. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no confusion. Lists which rely on articles to substantiate the verifiability of claims are lacking. Who knows what the articles linked to are like, and, as I've discovered, many don't have references. What's the problem with referencing claims in each article to enable them to stand alone? In fact, some articles I've seen lately have become redirects to other articles. This won't be reflected in the superlist so how many clicks do we expect our readers to perform to actually get to the reference? (Again, this is nothing to do with FLC, just purely about WP:V) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

But, importantly, this is the MOS, not policy. WP:V only demands that sources have been located and identified. Thus, just because a blue-link entry does not have a citation is not a reason to remove the entry. Again, don't get me wrong, the absolutely right way to build a list is to source every entry as you go along, and cleaning up a list is to bring in those references from the blue links to the list so there's no question. And there will be cases where the linked articles are redirects, or lack the right sourcing to justify the claim, justifying the removal of the blue link. The point is that the MOS can't surpass WP:V's allowance of "known but not included sources" while the list is being improved; only at the point where the MOS compliance is checked (primarily FLC for lists) is where these sources must be in place appropriately. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

But, most importantly, this misses the point. A reader wishes to read the source of the claim. He/she finds there is no reference. So he/she clicks on the "target article", and then has to search around to find the reference he/she was originally searching for. The article has obfuscated the original claim, it's confusing, where's the source to the claim I read one page ago? How the hell does that help our readers? This is all about lazy editing, pure and simple. Reference the facts where the facts are claimed. How difficult is that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point but as has been said above even featured lists introduce new facts without sourcing hence the request for clarity. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Let me make it clear to you. This is nothing to do with featured lists. "A reader wishes to read the source of the claim. He/she finds there is no reference. So he/she clicks on the "target article", and then has to search around to find the reference he/she was originally searching for. The article has obfuscated the original claim, it's confusing, where's the source to the claim I read one page ago? How the hell does that help our readers? This is all about lazy editing, pure and simple. Reference the facts where the facts are claimed. How difficult is that?". Incidentally, if you find any featured list which needs more references, please let me know, or submit it to WP:FLRC. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree 100 percent - WP:V is a founding principle that applies to all that we do when it comes to content in article/lists/categories. We are here to facilitate free knowledge and to try to do so in the most assessable way possible. We do not do things because they are easier for our editors - in fact we do the opposite - everything is for our readers. If people do not find it fun to sources facts - best to move on to a part of the project they find enjoyable. To quote WP:FIVE PILLARS "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." Moxy (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll stress a point that has been made clear at WP:V - a fact is considered sourced for WP:V's purposes if there is a specific reference (not just hand-waving at Google, but a named, possibly linked source) in an "obvious" place related to the article. That related place could be at the talk page, it could be at an AFD discussion, or any other discussion page directly tied to the article. This could mean that the source is bury in archives or the like, but for purposes of WP:V, it is considered verified. Yes, it is completely stupid not to move that source into the article, and of course the more contentious the fact, the more important it is to source it, but editors have been reprimanded for removing content where there is such a source not on the article page but on the talk pages. That's an issue with WP:V, one that I've seen fought against and failed to make a stronger requirement for inclusion, primarily that it is considreed part of cleanup to move such sources into the article. As long as that logic holds at WP:V, that logic has to hold here. If we can change that logic at WP:V, great, but I'm not seeing that happen any time soon given the certain groups that strongly back the current approach. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that seems to be the hardfought position of about three editors. I've never figured out their motivation.—Kww(talk) 20:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with that viewpoint of those limited editors but as that seems to be the only way to grease things at WP:N (following the same logic at WP:V) it's reasonably fair within DEADLINE. But that said, pushing on the point that some lists will have criteria that are contentious can require inline sourcing for list items on additions to the list. In other words, I'd less worry about fighting the issue on "List of people from New York" and more on "List of people that support LGBT", where I can say that claim requires a clear RS that permits inclusion, regardless if the source is buried on the person's WP article page. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Best to speak in ideals rather then exceptions. Lets try and keep it simple for our editors and readers. We should be saying - got a source use it when possible in the article by the statement to facilitate readers expansion of knowledge through sources. Agree with all you said above Masem - just think we should think of our readers at all times and when doing so assume what is common knowledge to some is not to others, thus easy verification would be the ideal situation. Its great that some other article or talk page history may have the verification but this does not help our readers verify for themselves. Wikimedia Foundation mission statement "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.Moxy (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I would love to make it "if you don't have an inline source, it can be removed" as general advice, but I've had to deal with the types of editors that KWW alludes to above that would fight against this approach tooth and nail, and found it is better to manage the middle ground which involves that we are in no rush to complete articles per DEADLINE, as long as specific sourcing has been identifies. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I see your point clearly now - I agree - no rush for removal unless there is contentious material as per Misplaced Pages:Libel. Moxy (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I want to correct something Masem said above... "WP:V only demands that sources have been located and identified"... not quite... WP:V also demands that a source actually be provided if the material is challenged or likely to be challenged. That's is an important part of understanding the DEADLINE process. While we are free to add unsourced information (and even free to create entire articles/lists with no sources), the second someone requests a source, we now have a BURDEN to provide one... and if we don't, the information can be removed. How quickly it gets removed depends on the nature of the information, but it does have to be provided within a reasonable time never the less.

More importantly, we have to provide a source where it is requested, and not wave our hand to some other page. Why?... because while the information may currently be cited on some other page, there is no guarantee that the information will remain cited on some other page. Remember that Misplaced Pages is a fluid medium. The other page (the one we are waving at) may end up being edited (or even completely re-written). It may end up in a state that no longer supports (or even discusses) the information in the list/article we are concerned about. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It does come back to how contentious the fact is to demand a source. "John Q Smith is gay" is absolutely 100% going to need a source to even be included in an article. "John Q Smith was born in New York", not so much particularly if the fact is "common knowledge" or documented elsewhere. Which is why I say that if a list is one that veers into a area where sources needs to be provided due to the contentiousness of the information to be offered, that can be made a condition for inclusion, irregardless of what those that shout DEADLINE may refute. But this should be made clear on the list's talk page or on the page's edit notice or in invisible comments that consensus has determined sourcing is required for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) That's precisely the issue I'm pursuing, the fact that we should not be relying on references (or external links in a lot cases) in "target articles" to verify claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Selection criteria

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Selection criteria. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Glossaries and Timelines

Recently some users have been submitting glossaries and timelines to AFD, and I am concerned about the implications because according to the WP:GLOSSARIES proposal and LIST, glossaries and timelines are articles that aide in comprehension of a notable subject. Some editors have taken this to mean that the glossary or timeline itself must meet GNG/N to be included. This seems to conflict with LISTN which states, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." If the topic on which the things are about is notable, shouldn't a timeline or glossary of terms likely be included. As for the individual articles themselves, they range in amount of work needing to be done, but Timelines of Gundam and List of Macross Frontier terminology, but AFD is not clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:GLOSSARIES is just a proposed guideline, until it's approved, it remains an essay. And LISTN speaks for itself, if not all the entries in the list need be notable, "the grouping or set" (ie what binds the entries together, the ordering logic or the topic behind the list) needs to be.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What is a red link, and what is not an acceptable red link

My vantage point comes from a recent spree of cleaning up red links. They're saying "red links are acceptable". I'm thinking "3RR". Ha!

WP:CSC says:

Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Misplaced Pages. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Misplaced Pages from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Misplaced Pages reflect this type of discernment.

But then it also says

"Creation guide" lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace.

The discrepancy arises from another kind of list article, the subject outline. I'm thinking there are two kinds of red links, and there is another kind of judgement involved in the other kind of red link that is scoping subjects, and this is the essence of red links: a red link found in an article that is reflecting a missing item in a hierarchical subject outline contains that "acceptable" essence, whereas the red link in other stand-alone lists contains little more than redness. Sometimes the redness is not very acceptable.

There is in fact significant occurrence of "unacceptable" red links. And they're being supported by the sentence I struck out. Supporting them as "acceptable" goes against the Category:Misplaced Pages red link cleanup because the context of this section of the style manual is the same as the context of the cleanup template, which is that of stand-alone lists. Of course the cleanup template could be applied to red links that are not in stand alone lists. But this almost never happens (in the category). Subject outlines don't tolerate red links in themselves for long.

The discrepancy supports edit warring over cleanup templates. I hope to achieve a better, overall understanding, hence the length. (Sorry. You can get the gist from the one paragraph in bold lettering.) While the MoS keeps the struck-out text in that place, it will muck up 3RR queues.

The judgment on red link inclusion can be simplified: when it comes to red/blue links reducing readability, the judgment, esp. when there is an aging red-link cleanup template, is against overlinking (stale red links). I don't think "acceptable" is the right word because it implies that there was a reason found in a debate for accepting red links, and to accept that. But there is no reasoning left to do for any kinds of red linking. There are two kinds of red links, one inarguably unacceptable, and one inarguably acceptable (as I will show). In neither case would "acceptable" be the right word unless there was a reason for the acceptance, unless the reason came from a judgment, where "judgement" in our context means a non-trivial hearing, such as in 3RR or AfD resolutions of "acceptableness". Red links in a stand-alone list is a trivial matter that should not be heard in 3RR battles involving a red-link cleanup template. I don't see much of a battle against my unwording that sentence. I've thought it through to close the case here and now. Here it is.

Although tradition does without them, there are now two reasons for red links, 1) as an editor prerogative, timing the arrival of new articles on the wiki, and 2) as a subject outline indicator, scoping the content in an article. The former is not necessarily acceptable after a time, and the latter is what is here found to be an acceptable use of a red link as the semi-permanent establishment of a subject outline in competition with other encyclopedias.

The unacceptable kind of red link is from an over-zealous editor making too numerous decrees, and is so "not acceptable" that there will always exist the corresponding cleanup template. Too much zeal lands in 3RR. Where every item in a list is bonified as an article, saying there "this black text should be blue, so I'll make it red to indicate that" carries little truck. Think about that. There could be seen no red links if the same editor (who knew both of the subject, and the subject inside and out) would just create the article. This type of red linking is tag-team editing, which is fine when the team plays well, but not if if the "team" is in a multiple-personality disorder. Although this is rarely ever an unacceptable kind of red link, neither is it acceptable at all times, so I struck it out in the rewording above. When it is no longer "acceptable" for red links to remain overlinking a list article, there is no debate. There is no "acceptable compromise" arising from a hearing except to say "pick one or two to be red, not all of them". Editor prerogatives lose by WP:NOT and the admin fiat from an aging cleanup template decree. (Nor do I expect to see too much debate concerning the other kind of red link. It will stay red, in one form or another, until it is in another form, red.) "Acceptable" sounds as if negotiations were had. They weren't really had. There really are none to be had, and there are no debates about negotiability, there is only inarguability, as I am proving. Overlinking red link is fair game for removal of the redness in the "link", returning it to black, which is a black "link" equivalence, by virtue of being on a stand-alone list. In the 3RR game, where 100% removal results in 100% restoral (of the overlinking of red links), the game ends in the loss of 100% red-not-black links every time, hands down. Even if exceptions are made for a few articles, those articles might sit with a cleanup tag, which is hardly acceptable because, well it's not well, because WP is not an anarchy.

If "this is a notable subject the encyclopedia needs" is information that both a list and a red link signify, why even one red link on the stand-along list? If none exist in the stand-alone list, then what are red links for? I believe an application of red links was found that contains more intelligence, and that is the intelligence implicit in a wikifiable subject outline. That subject outline is somewhere else, just as is the cite of a list item, red or black, is somewhere else when not yet existent in the references section. The subject outline is more widely available because publishable on Misplaced Pages proper, and thus has more potential intelligence than what appears to be haphazard "timing prerogatives" or random "timing prerogatives" or just general pushiness to the readership. A red link that is scoping a subject is just awesome to the general audience, highly acceptable, while "hearing" editor A telling editor B "time to edit red snow" for timing reasons is hardly acceptable (but not unacceptable), being almost a violation of WP:Self reference. Seeing 100% red links where seeing 100% black "links" would be entirely equivalent to the reader, carries for me no good reason, is not in good standing, misunderstands red links, and lapses on the readership-orientation mandates of Misplaced Pages. When "ownership" will overproduce redlinks then defend overlinking, then may those not rightly be 100% undone via the counter-fiat of an aging cleanup template? Or else which random red links might be left by a cleanup from an outsider? None. A few left might be chosen by an insider-defender, if any, but any wholesale defense carries little truck.

It is worth noting that the subject outline, if it is documented, does not tolerate red links well in itself, but it expects the corresponding link in the article are red, thus bringing the map to the adventurer, and finding best use of red link. An acceptable use of red links is where they can represent subject outlines. You don't touch such red links, like you don't touch category trees— unless "you da man" who specializes in that. There exist young MediaWiki wikies with copious red link in the articulation. The "hierarchical subject outline" kind of red link is not even stylistically limitable. There is no style guide debate possible that would precisely limit, as a definite percentage of such prose, any creative red linking: there are no limits to subjects (and thus their discussions concerning their relevance). It can be 1%, 10%, 20%! and no cleanup template could suggest its dating. That is the "acceptable" kind of red link, whose acceptance is remains largely unquestioned until a better organization arrives. This other kind of red link is acceptable because desirable as a no-pressure "to do" that is based more on knowledge and less on opinions about how to be hasty.

The term "acceptable" was used probably because a specific number cannot be found for red links in a stand alone list. Thus the exceptions that are the red links in the stand-alone lists are "temporarily acceptable". This is understood, but not stated clearly enough in the MoS. Such red links are acceptable only until they become "unacceptable", when holds are barred on them. The number of stylistically acceptable red links on stand alone lists might depend on the number of team members, hotness of the article subject, etc. Reorganizing a list article's red linked list items would shift red links from one list item to another. Many of the worst lists on Misplaced Pages are overlinked with red links, producing lists that are too red "to be useful to readers". Because such lists are 100% blue linkable, all black "links" are red in theory. Thus such lists need not contain red links, except when an editor is guiding other editors at the expense of the readers. "The best lists on Misplaced Pages", for example, Timeline of ancient history need display no red link, and so the struck sentence was problematic in its context because Timeline of ancient history is a list article that would probably not "accept" red links.

Because overlinked red link articles seem pushy and religious, sporting, and political, the wording that they are "acceptable" seems a red herring. It implies a debate was won for red links as "editor timing prerogatives". It wasn't: they are barely tolerated because not best practice. It is esp. not debatable when the cleanup templates appear. Yet they will debate and debate thinking "all's fair in love and war", and they'd be right.... Hey, let's take away that sentence I pointed out, and leave the other one ruling that "a large number" of red links don't belong. — CpiralCpiral 00:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A red link should be weighed via its likely claims to N/GNG as redlinks either become stand alone articles or are directed to pieces of other articles. Any number of red links is acceptable given that the coverage is missing, but do not make a list of red links in namespace because that is useless to the readers of Misplaced Pages. Such a list however is part of WP:MISSING. Roehm's Avengers, notable but absent, but weighing the topic shows it should definitely remain a red link until someone creates the page. Your example of "Timeline of ancient history" is a dangerous because it advises removal by coverage omission. Misplaced Pages is not a print encyclopedia, and those red links can be fixed at any time. It is rare for someone to insert a missing entry once a page is made, let alone spread it out across all relevant mentions, relinked the de-linked material or even removed mentions. I say no, red links are fine even at FA articles because they will likely become blue links and have an expectation to do so. Assuming the target subject is N/GNG, red links are important for building the encyclopedia and will improve accessibility as soon as someone takes the initiative. Also, we may have 4.3+ million articles, but anyone working in non-Angelo centric fields knows that English Misplaced Pages's coverage of notable monuments, art, people, vehicles, and all facets of their history are poorly documented, but are nonetheless important subjects. A red link says to an editor "make me", whereas black text is self dismissive. From the point of a reader, and purely a reader, it matters not because the missing information simply isn't there, at best a reader may search outside Misplaced Pages for the term because the presence of the link conifers that the subject is worthy of an article. Red links remaining red links is fine, but the real danger is in de-linking those links or omitting subjects presumed by others to be notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be dangerous to "not grow", to not charge ahead, on with wiki, and the red links that grow wiki. I dismiss not growth by making red links plain, I dismiss red because red itself impoverishes plain text dismissively. An expert might decide over a red item on the same list that a black item is going to be their contribution. There is no debating "cleanup red links" tags, or "creation guideline" abuses at 3RR; I think abuses will be remedied at 3RR quickly if I would revert to plain text three times, and have them warn the abusers not to continue reverting to red links. (I'm not doing that, because it is wikilawyering. I'm following the rules and talking and reasoning on the discussion page.) I'm not against growth by advertizing the "weight of a topic" on a stand-alone lists, I'm simply for cleanup tags and for "tough love" levied on over-zealous editors.

What I'm really doing by asking this guide's authorship to consider rewording (besides addressing a discrepancy) is advocating for more awareness of those red links that serve to provide Misplaced Pages containment tasks, that are more organizational to Misplaced Pages than organizational to the worlds missing articles. I advocate not because I'm worried about the existence of Misplaced Pages articles, but because alongside my admonishing the guide for the enabling of the abuse of red link "quantity imperatives" there comes the important additional reason I'm here: to advocate for the rethinking of red links in a way that has less to do with physical growth (N, V, or RS), and more to do with subject outlines as a healthy exercise in quality competition with other encyclopedias, and thus here to have one world of red see the other world of red, and thus understand red usage better. (There are two kinds of valid red links, one for shaping the subject space of articles, and one for adding new articles. The subject scoping aspect of red links are not yet clear at Misplaced Pages: Red links.)— CpiralCpiral 07:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Just as users should not insert red links unless they are reasonably certain we can have an article on that specific topic, you should not remove a red link unless you are reasonably certain we CANNOT have an article on that specific topic. Mass removal of redlinks is, in nearly all cases, destructive editing. The main exceptions are, of course, AfD cleanup, spam, and if they were recently mass-inserted in a similarly haphazard manner. --erachima talk 07:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You bring up an excellent point, being right on about indiscriminate actions. No subject-outline type of red link should be removed. All stand-alone type of red links should be removed. How to tell the difference? It's not easy. All the ones on the standalone list are notable, so can be made not-red because those are already notable and creatable. What if a red link was serving to signify both that an article need creation now/next, and that it was a list item on a subject outline? (It is both kind of red link.) I point a bot-like creature to the list and clean it up, being neither the surgeon to discern any inclusion policy nor subject-matter expert to discern scope/size of an articulation. I am a hapless, 3RR-savy gnome knowing nothing about the subject-outline or the topic. I am only following orders. Assume a red-links cleanup template as a general guide to there. Have I done something wrong? Yes. Is there anything I can do about it? No. Is there anything Misplaced Pages can do about it? Must they stop cleaning up abused red links? Must gnomes not be there, but only elsewhere? Must only discernment reign over red links? I can only hope that most of the red links were "article creation guidelines", which are being tagged there with support from here saying they are unacceptable in mainspace.

Then the cleanup is reverted (along with the removed cleanup tag), saying "red links are acceptable". They don't understand the cleanup template, and just ignore it. They read this guide, saying "red links are acceptable" in stand-alone lists, where actually they carry no information except that their exists an editor with delusions about article creation timelines.

But here is my specific point. This section of the guide deals with stand-alone lists whose every item is a notable article. Starting from that, add a simple red-link cleanup tag. Does the guide support that? No. As it reads, even cleanups of stand-alone lists are not allowed because "red links are acceptable ", whereas "creation guides" are not. I want to remove that discrepency. — CpiralCpiral 20:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing or unlinking the redlinks from a specific list is not necessarily disruptive... but going on a crusade, removing redlinks from lots of disassociated articles (essentially to make a point) is. Whether red-links are kept, de-linked or removed entirely must be judged on a list by list basis... because so much depends on the topic of the specific list.

That said, I have found that in general, a list that contains lots of redlinks is a sign that the list itself is problematic. It probably means that the list is focused on a non-notable aspect of some other topic, and should be merged into another article (or re-merged back into the parent article if it was a spin-off). Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You are onto something I may have forgotten when you say how so much depends on the specific list and the specific topic's history—that the admin placing the cleanup tag is using this guide to decide? Because if the description of the topic as you describe it is not described clearly enough at WP:RL, the guide to the initial placement of the cleanup tag, based on messy style, may be mislead.

Since the list we're talking about here in this part of the style guide cannot contain non-notable items, I thought it would be very easy to suggest that red links are not acceptable when the cleanup tag has matured, but of course It's more complex that that. If a list is seen as "problematic" because it has red links on it, and if those red links are are not notable topics (i.e. virtual articles), but merely "non-notable subjects for another topic" as you say, then, (and here it gets tricky to understand), your type of red-link description, that is subject-focused (folding and unfolding from articles) is acceptable (as a complex style issue) indefinitely, as subject-outline representatives, and a cleanup tag may be removed by the knowledgeable defender for the reason that the list appeared to be an article creation guide, but was actually true red link, which are misunderstood. You seem to be describing the true red link, the ones that appear as "non-notable subjects for another topic" make for quality, not quantity, the ones that forge a real encyclopedia out of a list of indiscriminate subjects.

The other complexity, as pointed out above by erichima, simple "article creation guidelines" imperatives, can muck up a perfectly good set of subject-oriented red links, the kind you describe, by mixing creation guidelines into them, the kind that are not to be kept in mainspace or confused with true red links.

Blueboar, I'm here only to try to stop the self-contradictory red link guidance, and will probably go to WP:RL next to get to the root of the problem. The complexities here that allow the discrepancy to exist could very well be the cause of both cleanup-templates on stand-alone lists (virtually all of the cleanup tags), plus be the cause of the revert of the cleanup, i.e. that the discrepancy incites 3RR war, e.g. when a eight-mos-old cleanup tag is guiding the hapless wikignome straight to an edit war. Editors who ignore the cleanup tags don't understand that there their red means nothing, they think red is saying something, and that it is "acceptable"; they just don't understand.— CpiralCpiral 20:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a sincere question for you. Why do you find it difficult to read a list where each item contains one red link? I can understand that in prose, many red links quickly lead to overlinking. But at lists, each entry is self-contained and separate from items above and below. I think that the red links at each entry in the list should be interpreted on their own merits, independent of other entries; this way, the percentage of red links in the whole list doesn't matter much. But as you seem to strongly disagree with this position, could you please elaborate on why you don't find this reasoning compelling, and why it bothers you so much to have red links at many items in the list?

Apart, I believe appropriate here to gently remind you that Misplaced Pages rules are not rigid nor universal; it doesn't make much sense to infer one interpretation of written rules and apply it everywhere, because Misplaced Pages rules are not made to be used consistently. It's OK to apply a rule one way at some articles, and exactly the opposite way at others; it really depends of who do you find interested in supporting each article or topic. This is fine, and Misplaced Pages rules are designed to support that loose interpretation and the possibility to be ignored at any time if editors agree to do so (this is the meaning of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:CONSENSUS policy).

So, the best approach to get others to agree with you, or to explain why they disagree, is to explain the benefits that you think will be achieved by following (or not following) the rules at each particular case. You won't get too far if you simply elaborate on why you think your interpretation of the rules is consistent, as others may simply disagree with that interpretation or rather think that it doesn't improve the article being discussed (and thus can be ignored). Diego (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to expose conceptually an improved red link, so on purpose, and yes with difficulty I try to see them differently. The reason I take the stance of the devil's advocate is because I believe the MoS and WP:Red link need improvement. They seem to be setting up edit wars. There is something missing, and I aim to find it and make it part of a more solid guideline to refer to. What I can say for sure is there may very well be something wrong around redundancy when "article creation guidelines" use red links in stand alone lists. I'm also sure that the principles of notability and reliability are banter around red linking that can better become well defined aspects of red links, and not red links themselves, as those principles are being used to fully define the red link. The red link is yet ill defined, and so its style is ill-defined. — CpiralCpiral 19:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly Cpiral, I'm sensing a general lack of clue here, and with the way you write you'll probably not win many people over if you're dragged off to one of the Drama pages to argue the point. So, again, when in doubt, don't delink stuff. --erachima talk 04:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have doubt, and I have stopped delinking for now until my numerous clues (noted elsewhere) are demystified and the doubt is removed, thank you. — CpiralCpiral 19:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria"

One of the common selection criteria mentioned is "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria", with an explanation, "These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names." Better examples may be needed, as the first contains at least two entries that meet notability criteria, and the second isn't a stand-alone list. I also suggest removing "most or" as that contradicts the criterion. Peter James (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note that List of minor characters in Dilbert is a section within the broader List of Dilbert characters article... and NOT a stand alone list. Blueboar (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this section needs additional clarification. If all of the items in a list 'do not warrant independent articles', why does the list necessarily warrant an article? As the section is specifically discussing notability in relation to the list, I believe WP:LISTN is relevant, and that this section could more clearly align with the inclusion criterea discussed there.Dialectric (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

it is used a lot for "list of minor characters in X" type of articles, but your question about the "why does the list warrant an article?" still stands - and the answer is probably "because there are lots of fanboys" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Which is not a good enough reason. Maybe we should not have lists that include entries that don't meet our notability criteria. This seems to give pretty free reign for list creation. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I do think this needs to be addressed, and apart from appeasing a certain subset of wikipedia users, still can't understand the rationale for applying a lower standard of notability to these lists. Not to canvas, but for example's sake, I'm currently participating in an afd for several "everything is not notable" list articles related to a relatively low-importance computer game, and experienced editors are arguing that wikipedia policies support keeping such lists, while the fictional element AFD archive shows that in the absence of clear guidelines, past results for such lists have been all over the place. Dialectric (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Lists of companies and organizations

No need for notability? So anyone can add their company to a list if it's relevant? If this is so, we can't stop people from advertising their company on lists (with presumably a link to their company to prove it exists). Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The approach I'd like to see is: (1) If there isn't a reliable source to support the claim that a particular non-notable organization is a member of the set, then remove it. (2a) If a source can be found, then it is OK to include that organization in that list. (2b) However, if the list is too broad to be useful it may not itself be encyclopedic/notable and can be AfD'd for a variety of reasons. For example, given the right sources quite a few non-notable organizations would be eligible as members of List of unimportant small businesses in Suffolk – but the list itself probably wouldn't survive AfD. Does that work for you? - Pointillist (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really as it doesn't stop people using these lists to promote their company, no matter how small it is. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if there is a reliable independent source that shows the small company is genuinely a member of the set that the list describes, I think that should be sufficient. It's a sort of nano-notability. Of course, the list itself can still be challenged. - Pointillist (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, that allows anyone to promote their own one man company as long as they've managed to get someone to write about it in their local paper. And how about a list of some form of media? Would any website be able to include itself, as it obviously exists. For instance, if we had a list of online news media. Seriously, such lists could theoretically have at least hundreds of thousands of entries of companies nobody outside their immediate vicinity ever heard of. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What is being left out of the discussion is the issue of context. Let's take the example of PepsiCo... it owns lots of other companies. Many are notable in their own right, but others are not. Now, our article on PepsiCo might well include a section that lists of all companies that are owned by PepsiCo ... both the notable and the non-notable. I hope everyone would agree that it might be appropriate to include such a list... in the context of that article.

However, let's suppose that the PepsiCo article was getting overly long... we might decide to split that section off into a daugher article entitled List of companies owned by PepsiCo. Now things get trickier. We have to decide if it is appropriate to include the non-notable companies in this new context?

There is an argument for saying that we should not... When we create a List of X article, the title always assumes an omitted word: the word "notable". In other words, the title "List of X" is assumed to contain the word "notable" even if that word is omitted. List of X is assumed to actually be List of (''notable'') X. Thus, as soon as you remove the section on "Companies owned by PepsiCo" and present it in its own article, you are actually creating a List of ''notable'' companies owned by PepsiCo... and the non-notable companies should be left out.

There is, however, a counter argument... the argument that in a split-off daughter article (list or not), the notability of the parent article (PepsiCo) is transferred to the daughter list. Personally, I don't think this is valid a valid argument (Notability is not inherited)... but it is one that is made.

Of course there is yet another possibility... if it can be established that "X" is a notable attribute in its own right, then there is an argument to say that anything that falls into that group should be listed. So... if it can be established that being owned by PepsiCo is a notable attribute for a smaller company to have (note I said "if") then any company with that attribute should be listed. In this case, the key is to establish the notability of the attribute. The list would need to have at least a few paragraphs of text that talk about why being owned by PepsiCo is notable in its own right.

As I said... it's a tricky thing... and it all depends on context. Blueboar (talk)

I see various lists where there are constant attempts to add companies without articles & where other editors remove them - I do myself at times. That seems to be standard practice, and I think the guidelines should reflect that. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree ... the tricky part is figuring out what to say. The appropriateness of keeping/removing non-notable items in a list really depends on the topic of the specific list, and the context in which that list appears. In some lists, it is highly appropriate to limit inclusion to notable items... in other lists it highly appropriate to be more flexible and allow non-notable items. The hard part is figuring out which is which. Blueboar (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

We need to be more strict on our criteria

A lot of list articles are being made despite that their better off as categories. And this is mainly pertaining to fiction such as List of fictional Jews or List of LGBT characters in film, animation, written fiction, video games, television and radio, List of multimedia franchises

Now just to assure anyone who has bad-faith, I'm no nazi and I definitely fall in LGBT. But to me, these type of lists seem to just be there for fan readers who want to look up these characters. To me, its like trying to list every book out there. For example: LGBT fictional characters also fall into LGBT genre, such as yaoi and yuri (japanese genres for gay and lesbian). So it seems to defeat the purpose of making such a list if its already a genre. The LGBT wikiproject had made it so that their inclusion is by series that have articles on them. In which seems to me like their trying to put a loophoole.

I personally have don't any specific interests in jews, so personally I don't see what merits it is to have a list of fictional jewish characters. Its like looking for list of fictional catholics, list of fictional wiccans. Etc.

Shouldn't we find ways to make the criteria more strict.Lucia Black (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is well-settled (though of course consensus can change), for many years now, that lists and categories -- though they can be very similar or even close to identical -- serve different purposes, have different characteristics, and have different capabilities when it comes to referencing, etc. (whether those are availed of or not, in any particular case). As to the list of fictional Jews, over 55,000 people found it of interest in the past 90 days it would seem -- so while you personally may not find it of interest (I could say that of much of the project), others have a different view. No doubt what interests you will not always be of interest to all others, either. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What those lists need are solid introductions... a paragraph or two, to establish that the concept of a fictional TV/Radio character being Jewish (or LBGT, or whatever) is notable in the first place. This would be true for similar lists... any "List of X in Y" article needs to establish that the connection between X and Y is notable. Once that is done, then we can populate the list with Xs that are verifiably in Y. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Lists of names

It mentions reliable sources, but shouldn't we specify that those sources must be referenced in the list? Too often it seems to be assumed that a linked article is sufficient. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I sympathize, but since we don't require sources for adding people to categories I doubt that lists are going to be policed any better, at least in the short term. What we really need is a "global" named reference space so it is easy to cite the same source across different articles and languages. - Pointillist (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

See: WP:Stand-alone lists#Citing_sources... This MOS already specifies that list articles need inline sources, and that simply linking to an article is not sufficient.

That said, if the information is sourced at the linked article, then the fact that the list is not being properly sourced is an

That seems reasonable and I often do it - often finding it isn't sourced or even in the linked article. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sadly there are hundreds of lists which adopt this approach, I think it's even written somewhere in MOS that this is somehow acceptable, that a list can simply rely on linked articles for references, for example List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Worse still is that nuggets of info from the linked articles are then added to the list article, often incorrectly, and it renders the verifiability of the list useless. As Blueboar has suggested, you could fix it yourself, but in a list with hundreds if not thousands of entries, that's a huge ask. We should be changing the guidance (wherever it is) that suggests having zero references because you can rely on the fact that Misplaced Pages has an article about it to reference each and every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup... or at least we need to initiate a joint centralized discussion to resolve the conflict... we should not have two guidelines giving contradictory guidance. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Could the selection criteria for lists be amended to address the plethora of extremely minor film awards in WP:FILM list articles? 17:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agree : A discussion on this took place at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film#Laundry lists of awards from Dec. 14-21, and after WP:CSC was brought up, editors mutually agreed that an RfC might be called for.

Some standalone movie / actor / director "list of awards and nominations" articles are filled with what might be reasonably considered trivial, insignificant awards by regional film-critics groups and film clubs. Issues of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE were brushed aside when an editor pointed to WP:CSC to support including every film award and nomination by every related entity with a Misplaced Pages article.

This has led to the likes of the North Texas Film Critics Association being given equal weight with the Academy Awards, the Golden Globe Awards, the Screen Actors Guild Awards, etc. This seems as if it goes against the purpose of WP:CSC, which, in its words, "prevents Misplaced Pages from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers."

This hard-line adherence means, some editors at the discussion argue, that we are required to list such arguably very minor awards as

• The Phoenix Film Critics Society, whose membership includes non-professional, amateur reviewers as well non-notable WP:SPS bloggers and free weekly penny-shoppers.
• The Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film, a movie fan club that anyone can pay to join, with awards that are essentially fan polls of its primarily Boston-based membership
• The Redbox Movie Awards, which are essentially a promotional tool for a video-distribution company.
• The Golden Collar Awards, given by a commercial web site dedicated to the products for dogs.

One editor at the previous discussion suggested we could push to delete the related articles, but a) an entity may meet minimum standards of notability even though everything it says and does might not, and b) this isn't necessarily possible.

Given that the world of film and TV generate an inordinate amount of "awards" that, say, the electronics and corporate worlds do not, would it be sensible to consider amending WP:CSC with some reasonable guidelines to prevent the clutter of such awards and nominations? Chlotrudis alone had 67 last year. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be interested in this debate if you can draw a line between "film awards" (with Misplaced Pages articles) and "film awards" (which are "extremely minor" but still have Misplaced Pages articles). How do you intend to do that on a case-by-case basis? Which awards are you proposing to categorise as "extremely minor"? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Right now we're just seeing if the community wants the guideline amended. How comes later, and would be the result of consensus discussions by many editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a waste of time if you don't have a proposal on how it would be implemented. Good luck with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the useful comment. Myself, I prefer to work collaboratively with other editors, coming up with ideas together rather than trying to ram my own ideas down anyone's throat. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
        • What a helpful approach, I don't recall ramming anything down anyone's throat. Nice touch. The point is that obviously there are differences of opinion on major and minor film awards. That's fundamental. But you aren't proposing a solution at all. If you haven't got a proposal, it's a waste of time. Sorry if that's upsetting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Not upsetting, jus confusing. I don't understand the point of anyone saying, "I disagree with your approach, so therefore it's a waste of time." Seems to me the only person wasting time is someone who comes in with no constructive comments but just wants to rag on someone else. Seems like it would be less a waste of such a person's time to not spend any time commenting on something they don't want to comment on. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
            • The point I'm making is that, fine, rail against "minor" awards, no-one will argue with that, but unless you have a proposal to deal with them, this is a waste of time. If an award is notable enough for Misplaced Pages to have an article about it, why shouldn't it be included in an article? You need to have some kind of criteria to "draw a line" below Oscars and above Razzies or whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
              • That's one way of doing things. Being step-by-step is another. Saying your way is valid and my way is not is simply your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. But deliberately trying to sabotage another editor simply for wanting to conduct a discussion in a way you don't like? I don't see the point, and it seems bullying for no reason. If you don't want to be part of a discussion, no one's forcing you to. But if other editors choose to be, how does that harm or otherwise affect you? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                • Heh, there's no "deliberate sabotage", I'm asking for some answers, proposals on what you suggest, how to distinguish between awards and "minor awards". You haven't told us how you'll do that, so your proposal is somewhat limited. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                  • Then it must be accidental sabotage, since you're not discussing the pro or con of making a change but saying I don't even have the right to ask the question because you, personally, don't approve of the question. Any guideline / policy change is a serious undertaking, and should be done with care, step-by-step. If editors don't believe there's a need for change, then there's no sense in having some people debate the details and specifics while others debate whether we should even do it in the first place. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                  • Nope, you don't get it. This is an obvious discussion, of course we don't want to litter Misplaced Pages articles with "minor" awards, but you have to have a proposal that delineates between "minor" and "acceptable" awards. If an article has a Misplaced Pages article and you declare it "minor", you have to be able to argue against its inclusion in other articles, or the award's article's deletion. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                    • I've explained it twice, and you still don't understand that your way is jumping ahead and skipping an important step. What's your endgame besides haranguing for the sake of it, since you don't have anything better to do and no constructive comments to make? Do you want me to say, "Oh, you're right. How dare I ask a question that The Rambling Man doesn't approve of. Why, I guess I should take it down and never darken his door again." Is that it? Because I'm not sure what your purpose is to just complain over and over, "Oh, what a stupid question." Why are you even here? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                      • If this line of conversation isn't likely to achieve anything productive, the best thing for both of you to do drop the stick and move on. You'll thank yourself later for being the bigger man. BOZ (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The question being presented is: Could the selection criteria for lists be amended to address the plethora of extremely minor film awards in WP:FILM list articles?... and I think the answer to that question is: Yes, of course the criteria could be amended.

Now, the next question is: "Should the selection criteria be amended?" My opinion on that is... Maybe, Maybe not.

To answer that question, we really do need to see a more specific proposal outlining what changes to the selection criteria you would like to see made. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate Blueboar's constructive, analytical approach. Let me step and ask this: Have many of my fellow editors worked with project managers at major media corporations? When I did, we didn't make major changes to, say, the company's website without first ascertaining that there really was a need to make the change. It would have been premature to suggest "solutions" if a problem didn't exist.

The consensus here may be that we want to keep every piddling little "award" that has a related Misplaced Pages page — two editors at the talk-page discussion cited about do. If so, then there's no need to spend time and energy on "solutions." Albert Einstein, I'm told, said that if he had one hour to save the world he would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and five minutes finding the solution. That's why this is two-step process. Disagree with my approach if you will, but are you gonna disagree with Einstein (and every project manager I've ever worked with)? I say this last sentence tongue-in-cheek. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment what Blueboar said. What's the proposal (as I asked)? What's a "minor" and what's a "major" award and how does it apply to specific types of movie? Will there be an "approved" list somewhere? Will the "extremely minor" awards be nominated for deletion? Is there any harm in film articles having a comprehensive award listing, or sub-page to do so? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

OK... WP:CSC point #1 notes that it is common practice to limit the inclusion criteria of a list to items that are deemed notable enough for their own articles. Given this, I would agree that should a specific award be deemed not notable enough to rate its own stand alone Misplaced Pages article, then that specific award should probably not be included in a list of awards a movie has won. This does not address the sub-question of whether a given award is notable enough for its own article (or not)... that is a separate question. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The RfC question isn't really about whether a given award (or, more often, the governing group) should have its own article or not — the notability bar is low enough to acknowledge that the Phoenix, Arizona, film-critics group exists and gets enough Google hits to warrant an encyclopedia entry. But when the critics themselves include amateur, retiree movie fans, non-notable bloggers, and non-professional penny-shopper writers, the question is: Should we amend CSC in regards to film awards, to limit those lists further, so as to " Misplaced Pages from becoming an indiscriminate list, and ... individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers."

I have several ideas how to do this, but before we put the cart before the horse, let's see if there's even any impetus to amend CSC for film awards. The community may not even want to. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Members of the community, which includes The Rambling Man, are trying to figure out if they have an impetus to amend CSC by asking first if there is even a reasonable ability to do so. Blueboar suggested there were two questions being asked, "Could we" and "Should we". They concluded that "Yes" was the answer to "Could we". But Rambling Man, myself, and possibly others disagree and feel that if we can't even suggest a "Could we" proposal, then it may be unnecessary to ask the community if they should. We are considering these two questions simultaneously even if that conflicts with Tenebrae's preferred way of assessing the situation. If you would like to help us with our decision process, please provide possible solutions. The only proposal I see listed was a cut-off if the award itself, not the group awarding it, is notable enough to have its own page. I would imagine this bar is too high and would exclude some widely recognizable awards. As of right now, I am against going forward simply becasue I can't think of any workable solutions to even debate. But that is just my own personal incredulity and I generally like the idea of excluding minor awards. So help sway me and tell me about some workable solutions. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

While I'm wary of putting the cart before the horse, some of us at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film#Laundry list of awards have been discussing some ideas preliminarily of how at least to address WP:UNDUE in standalone-list articles. So that's a start, though I think the idea there is that this is a larger discussion than just one for WikiProject Film editors. Certainly, the more the merrier, so I hope you come by.

And — again though I'm hesitant to propose suggestions when we're not even sure there's a problem that need addressing — one step we might take is to not include regional film-critics' nominations, but just the awards. That would certainly cut down on the clutter. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Navigation break

That sounds like a start. How do you determine a film-critic is regional? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 09:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, if a small independent film has just nominations from a regional film critic, are those allowable? How small is small? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I would use the well-established example of Regional theater in the United States, which defines it (as does the Regional Theatre Tony Award) as theater outside New York City. I'd imagine with film it'd be, for the same reason of being outside the major production centers, critics groups outside both New York City and Los Angeles. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am novice to this, but aren't many of the major film awards outside major production centers, like Sun Dance and Cannes? And again, I know you think this is moving past the initial point, but I am still trying to see if there is even a viable way to separate the two categories which doesn't resort to original research on our part. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Those are film festivals. Whole other discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What about films that aren't made in the US? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. Foreign films like The Wind Rises are reviewed by US critics and given awards by regional critics. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What about regional critics from regions outside the US, how are they categorised? What's a "minor" award from these regions? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've never yet seen a non-US film-critics group listed in a film article other than perhaps the London Film Critics' Circle. Anything else is such a rare occurrence as to be negligible and easily handled on a case-by-case basis. I'm also not seeing that things like the Manchester Film Critics Society or the Swansea Film Critics Society even exist. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

So are all members of Category:Film critics associations going to be categorised into regional/non-regional or major/minor? Would it depend on the type of film they're reviewing? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure of the need to mess with Category:Film critics associations. I guess we could, but that seems another discussion. And at this point, I don't think we're using the terms major/minor, but regional and whatever the right word for non-regional would be. Not sure how "the type of film" has any pertinence here — is there a reason to treat dramas differently than comedies, or animated films differently than live-action? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I also have to ask: Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but these recent questions seem so unusual, I get the feeling you're pulling my leg. That wouldn't be constructive. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) No, I'm asking you to explain how you intend this to be implemented across the globe, from minor independent movies in the UK to major blockbusters in the US to long-running Bollywood movies in India. It's quite straight forward. And I linked the category because it would be instructive to see how you personally categorise them. For instance, are the Evening Standard British Film Awards regional? Minor? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I just don't understand how anyone could ask if the London Evening Standard could be considered a regional paper.

And I don't understand how anyone would think that any awards group, whether the Academy Awards or the North Carolina Film Critics Awards, draws a distinction between "minor independent movies in the UK major blockbusters in the US". (Incidentally, is there such a thing as a "minor" blockbuster?) You seem to be needling me with nonsensical questions. How about just writing "Oppose" and stop hijacking a discussion about something you clearly have a bug up your bonnet about? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well because London is a region in the UK, in fact, it's a very small region indeed. I didn't ask if it was a regional paper in any case (although actually, you'd be hard pressed to buy the newspaper outside London, did you even look at our own article, where it states that the Standard is a "Regional free daily newspaper"!!!), I asked if the awards from this organisation would be considered minor or not. Regional or not. Clearly the answer to you original proposal is "yes, they could", but you seem to have no definition of how it would work at all. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Again with the needling: Yes, and New York City is "a region" as well. That doesn't make Broadway "regional theater." Geez. And we've been through this putting-the-cart-before-the-horse discussion before: You don't "solve" problems if there isn't a problem to solve. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You asked "I just don't understand how anyone could ask if the London Evening Standard could be considered a regional paper. ". Because it is' a regional paper. Funnily enough, the only decent proposal I've read is that from TriiipleThreat below. If an award is notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article, there shouldn't be any reason for it to be excluded on grounds of WP:OR or WP:POV. If awards are considered non-notable, trivial even, that should be demonstrated at AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: From what I can tell a large part of the problem is the number of film awards that have there own articles, which do not meet our own notabilty guidelines. These are poorly sourced articles and the few references they do have tend to be first party sources publishing information about themselves, not WP:THIRDPARTY sources as recommended. If we can eliminate these, I feel editors will feel less inclined to include them.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you truly believe that, WP:AFD is that way ---> The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, and that's not mutually exclusive. We can work on that and on this both. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, just thought that one hand might wash the other.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This makes sense - just like lists of people from X generally are limited to persons with standalone articles, a list of awards limited to notable awards (or the organizations that make those awards) makes sense, and if that means trimming barely/non-notable award articles, so be it. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, TriiipleThreat and MASEM — in the best tradition of collaboration and idea cross-seeding — have inspired an idea that may address the barely/non-notable issue: Why not, instead of separate articles for the Phoenix Film Critics and the Oklahoma City Film Critics, etc., just make a list article: "List of regional film-critics groups" or "List of American regional film-critics groups"? That we're we're acknowledging they exist, and footnotes will link to them — and we're free of the constraint of CSC, which only says that standalone lists should include entities with their own articles. We solve the issue of trivial laundry lists without having to adapt/amend CSC. What do other editors think? Should we scrap this RfC and start a new one, with this proposal, at WP:FILM? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sound fine to me.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Same here, seems to be reasonable. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So is the plan to assess each "regional" critic organisation on its merits to determine whether it's still worthy of an article? You can't just "redirect" all these organisations to a list, en masse. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question: Yes, via discussion and consensus at WP:FILM. Though, as before, first we'll see if there's a WP:FILM consensus whether to do so at all. As I've continually tried to impress upon you, no professional project manager starts soliciting "solutions" without first determining there is even a problem that needs solving.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your impressions are fabulous, and every project manager I know gets paid to do whatever they do, generally ineffectively, so forgive me for not bothering to follow that analogy up in any way at all. I think all you've established in this discussion is that you and a couple of others think perhaps that some of the minor film award organisations shouldn't have an article, so you need to head to AFD to sort that out. That was pretty obvious from the outset, perhaps you need a "consultant" rather than a "project manager", i.e. someone who advises on what to do, rather than someone who prevaricates and thinks simply of the budget. We don't need PMs here, just people who actually do things. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

We're all entitled to our opinions. Whatever your opinion on project management, it is just that, and objectively speaking, countless corporations use project management as a standard tool. No major construction project occurs without a project manager, so if you'd prefer that the Freedom Tower, say, had gone up without one, well, you'd be in a very small minority. Some editors prefer to do things methodically and carefully, collecting others' opinions and not just our own, rather than rushing something through. There is no deadline. And this RfC has only been up just over a week; there's still time for other editors to add their counsel and ideas. No one's twisting your arm to do anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So as I said earlier, looking forward to your multiple AFDs and merge proposals to get these articles all reduced to nothing, after all, that really benefits the whole encyclopedia just because you don't like the odd "regional" award on a film article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You not only miss the point, you see the very opposite of the point. The whole reason I'm asking the community if it thinks these trivial awards don't belong is because my opinion alone isn't important. There's no use to put everyone through a debate on solutions if the community says there's no problem to solve. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:CSC is a list of common selection criteria (emphasis added). It is not a list of obligatory selection criteria or a list of criteria that are always appropriate. It is not the right place for "do not include X in a list, ever". That should go somewhere else. James500 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

So conversely, you're saying WP:CSC doesn't require us to "include X include in a list, always"? That'd certainly cut through the red tape. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly. But you wouldn't really be able to justifiably remove those added, particularly if they have a Misplaced Pages article (thus demonstrating Misplaced Pages notability), unless you had local consensus for each and every film to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No, because each Project can adapt guidelines as makes sense for each Project — the same criteria apply to each film in the Project. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

But each film would have a different set of criteria, as I noted above. You'd probably limit films like Titanic to Oscars, Globes, BAFTAs etc, but you might prefer to include London International Festival of Science Fiction awards to films like Primer. There'd be no stopping anyone adding any award to any article, particularly if it had an article on Misplaced Pages. Unless you had local consensus to direct precisely what awards are allowed on what film articles, for every film article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would we arbitrarily limit awards based on no criteria? "Films like Titanic", meaning what? Films about ships? James Cameron films? Films that gross half-a-billion dollars? I can't help but think you're deliberately playing games and deliberately having fun at the expense of constructive when you make some of the seemingly random comment you make. You oppose this... fine. But making fun of the RfC isn't constructive in the least. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No, clearly I mean films which attract the top-ranking awards, such as Oscars, BAFTAs etc, the regional awards aren't so relevant for these kind of films. However, smaller productions which absolutely depend on regional recognition should be allowed to have those awards and nominations noted. So, the question is, how do you decide which films get to list which awards and nominations? You're really not being constructive at all (I don't even understand what " fun at the expense of constructive when" or "make some of the seemingly random comment you make" mean), and while I'm certain you can read and understand English, perhaps I need to spell things out more clearer for you (as a President of the US once said). Please let me know what you don't understand about what I've written. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I did. You say something like "films which attract the top-ranking awards", and that's no sort of objective criterion. That's completely subjective and after-the-fact. Who would seriously suggest such a vague and amorphous standard? So of course it sounds like you're making fun. And it certainly feels like harassment over something with which you disagree — so so you hijack the conversation with these inanities in order to kill it. You won't say your piece and move on, but you keep returning and returning with evident glee over your power to torpedo something you don't like. However, I believe experienced Misplaced Pages editors have seen that type of thing before and will see through your tactics. For myself, I can only keep faith in the process and see what an admin says after we hit 30 days.

On a separate note, Misplaced Pages is most certainly not here to shill for films that "depend on regional recognition." Promoting movies is not in our purview. Our job is to give people pertinent and relevant information of significance, not a laundry list of indiscriminate, undue-weight trivia. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So you haven't answered the question. Is each film going to have a list of awards/nominations that should be allowed on their page? How do you anticipate it will work, given the two examples I suggested. There are no inanities beyond those of your own construction. There's no making fun, just serious questions over how you would implement this. There's no "suggestion" of any "amorphous" standards, just two examples of works you would need to categorise, and I'd like to see how you can do that. Your "laundry list" argument is fine, but if an article is notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article, how do you decide whether it should or shouldn't be linked from another article? That's the crux, you have no substantial answer, and that's why this lightweight, ill-advised proposal will fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've already answered, but in short, your saying that "films like Titanic should be treated differently based on no specific reason" is inane. But here we have the crux of the matter: If you really believed this was "a lightweight, ill-advised proposal," then you simply would have commented and gone on to other things. Bu you're clearly worried that other editors will agree with this proposal that you dislike and it will pass — otherwise you wouldn't be spending so much time trying to sabotage it. But that's fine. Keep up the harangue. I believe in this system, and I believe the question deserves a fair hearing. You don't. I get it. And so just as you'll keep trying to sabotage the process, I'll just have to keep fighting to keep the process alive to let other editors have their say.

Oh, and I noticed you didn't respond to my point that we are not here to help support and promote movies you happen to like. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Project-Class List pages
• NA-importance List pages
• WikiProject Lists articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment